Monday, August 26, 2013

Protestant scholars still don't get it...We don't idolize nor worship Mary! Part 1




I've been forced to comment on this video due to the fact that many of the comments for this YouTube vid simply don't fully explain the Catholic position. Far too often Protestants make HUGE assumptions at what they personally believe to be Catholicism: "They pray to Mary!", "They worship a cookie!", "They practice necromancy with the help of the saints!", "The Pope is the anti-Christ!", etc., etc., ad nauseam...give me a break.

The truth is that most anti-Catholic Protestants have no inkling of what Catholicism is. They think they know what it is but in reality they don't; most have been force fed lies in order to validate their invented heretical theology. Therefore, I will endeavor, over the course of the next 2 posts, to decimate these anti-Catholic scholars as well as all of the other anti-Catholic commentators of this video and maybe, just maybe, you'll see at just how wrong Sproul and McArthur really are about what Catholicism teaches.

@0:00- 0:16, An audience member asks: "My family is still Roman Catholic and they still pray to Mary and the saints. Will this cause them to be kept out of heaven even though they claim to trust Christ for their salvation?" 
R.C. Sproul: "Maybe."

Maybe? Maybe? In other words, this anti-Catholic CANNOT say with 100% certainty that "praying to Mary" isn't a condemnable sin - not that we Catholics "pray to" anyone save God but, if we did, according to R.C. Sproul there's a possibility that Catholics will still get to heaven. That response just turned the whole argument on it's head, by allowing a sense of doubt - a sense that if you "pray to Mary" - you're not going against God's will, Sproul has officially endorsed the Catholic point of view of our communion with the saints and, as we shall shortly see, God is okay with the Catholic notion of praying with the Saints.

@0:17-0:22, "It's a gross act of idolatry to be praying to Mary and the Saints, that's a very serious matter."

Let's clear this up once and for all: CATHOLICS DO NOT "PRAY TO" MARY NOR THE SAINTS, we pray WITH and THROUGH the angels, saints and Mary! What do we mean by this? Well, simply put, since Catholics are part of Christ's one true Church here on earth (ecclesia militans) and the Saints and Mary are part of Christ's one true Church in heaven (ecclesia triumphans), we both share in the eternal body of Christ. Basically, if you're alive in heaven and you're alive on Earth, as a member of Christ's Body (the Church) and specifically because of his mediation, we are able to be in communion with Mary and the Saints. Therefore, since we all are joined through Christ and by Christ and we are all part of the same body of believers, we are afforded the benefaction of being able to ask the Saints and Mary to pray for us in the same exact manner that any Protestant would gladly ask a fellow member of their congregation to pray for them. When we ask a Saint to pray for us we are doing just that, asking a fellow member of our Catholic family to pray for us and - thanks to Christ - our communion with them is not impeded. [ NOTE: We "pray" to Mary in the sense that we ask her to offer up our petitions to God the Father through Christ and as we shall see later on, asking the Saints and angels to give up our prayers to Christ IS WHOLLY SCRIPTURAL.]

This idea naturally sets up a series of Protestants rebuffs, head among those is the charge of necromancy. To begin with necromancy is the use of dead spirits in order to foretell the future and future events. CATHOLICS DO NOT DO THIS, we DO NOT ask the Saints to reveal to us future happenings and we DO NOT ask for Mary's intercessory prayers in order to give us next weekend's lotto numbers. Asking a spirit to forecast the future is strictly prohibited from Scripture and all through out Christian history! However, the bible itself does lend credence to the Catholic view of communing with the Saints, and the best Scriptural example for this Catholic position can be found in 1 Samuel 28:3-20. In these verses we see that Saul has employed the aid of the witch/medium at Endor in order to conjure up the spirit of the prophet Samuel so that he may ask the spirit what to do against the advancing Philistine army. The spirit/ghost of Samuel replies that Saul has fallen out of favor with God and that he will surely die.

Now, let's analyze what takes place in this occurrance. First, Saul is aided by a spiritual medium to bring up the spirit/ghost of Samuel. Second, the spirit/ghost of Samuel appears and, lastly, the spirit/ghost of Samuel predicts the future for Saul. This is exactly what transpires in this exchange, never once does the biblical text state that the apparition wasn't Samuel nor does the bible ever refer to the spirit/ghost of Samuel as a demon; the reason why I state this is because Protestants are quick to infer that something demonic happened in this biblical passage, to those Protestants that hold this position I ask that you show where we can make such an assumption, because clearly, this biblical passage states that it was in fact the spirit of Samuel that came back to speak with Saul. And so now I must ask some pivotal question: If Samuel was simply a dead human, how was his spirit/ghost able to bring itself back into the realm of the living under its own power? Was the prophet Samuel so strong in death that he had the ability to travel from the realm of the dead and into the living? Or, does it make much more sense that God ALLOWED the spirit/ghost of Samuel to come back to Saul?

I think we all know the answer to that question. Clearly God had to of let Samuel's spirit visit Saul because if in fact a soul can come and go from the realm of the dead to that of the living, what point is there in having a heaven or hell? If a spirit can go to and fro from hell to earth - under its own power - why would God even set up hell as a form of punishment for the damned? Indeed, why stay in hell at all if a soul/spirit can escape? Conversely, if a spirit can go to heaven and then back to earth under its own volition, is heaven really such an awesome place that a spirit can choose to leave it at any time? What kind of reward is heaven if a spirit can decide to leave the reward for earthly confines?

You can therefore see that the thought of a spirit being able to willfully travel to the temporial sounds rather ridiculous. Therefore I will make the conclusion that only God can permit such a thing to happen and, if God is the only being that can decide if a spirit can leave heaven or hell - for whatever reason He has - it would only makes sense that it was God who authorized Samuel's spirit/ghost make contact with Saul. In other words, God ALLOWED this to happen. God allowed the spirit of Samuel to communicate with Saul in order to reveal to him just what Saul's sin had wrought upon him, as if Saul didn't already know, right?

This now brings up an even more crucial question that the Protestant has to wrestle with: If God did allow the spirit of Samuel to visit Saul to tell him the future, then didn't God aid in facilitating Saul to sin if necromancy is in fact a sin??? In Leviticus 19:31, God states the following:

Do not turn to mediums or seek out spirits, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God

In Deuteronomy 18:10-12, God states the following:

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire,who practices divination or sorcery,interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord...

So, did God go against His own word when He helped Saul to fall deeper into sin by letting the spirit of Samuel appear and predict the future to Saul? Well, if you're Protestant who believes that communicating with the dead is necromancy, then congratulations! You have officially declared God to be an agent of sin due to the fact that GOD HELPED SAUL TO SIN by providing the spirit of Samuel to be used in a sinful manner! If God detests such communication with the dead, the surely it would've been impossible for a sinless God to have done such a thing, right?

The only way that we can reconcile this issue is if we realize two things: 1) Saul sinned when he went in search of a spiritual medium to contact the spirit of Samuel to forecast the future and 2) God let Saul communicate with the spirit/ghost of Samuel due to the fact that IT WASN'T A SIN TO DO SO. That's right, God let a human being contact a spirit because He did not - nor will He ever - see this communication as a bad thing; because if in fact communicating with the spirit of the dead was a sin, then clearly, by helping in this communication, God became and accessory to sin and therefore God Himself sinned. Since God cannot be something He is not, He can never sin, therefore, humans communing with the saints is permitted by God.

A perfect example of this is seen in Jesus' Transfiguration where Christ is seen speaking to Moses and Elijah by 3 of His Apostles (See Matt. 17:1-6 & Luke 9:28-36), how was it that Jesus was able to talk to the dead? He willed it so because He is God and He did not sin because communicating with the dead through Himself, that is, through Christ, IS NOT A SIN. Therefore, unlike Saul who went to a medium to contact a spirit, Catholics turn to the power of the one and only mediator who - by His death and resurrection - allows us to be constantly in communion with the angles and Saints. Through Christ, we can ask for prayers from our dearly departed brothers and sisters and, through Christ, they listen to us on the other side of death, how do we know this? Well in Revelation 8:3-4, we read the following:

Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.

Revelation 8:3-4 states that the incense that the angel was an offering were the prayers of those who belong to Christ. We also see the same thing Revelation 5:8, it states in part:

...the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

IN CONTEXT, we know that these "holy ones" are Christ's faithful because Revelation 11:18 states that they are part of the people who will be rewarded by God. In Rev. 13:10, 14:12 and 16:6 we see that the "holy ones" remain faithful during their persecution. Therefore, the Saints and angles in heaven offer up our earthly prayers to God per the biblical account of St. John's visions. If the Protestant notion is correct and we cannot communicate with the dead, then how is it possible that the prayers of the holy people of God are not only heard by the angels and Saints in heaven but offered up to God? Doesn't this explicitly prove beyond doubt that the angels and Saints intercede and take our prayers to God? If the Protestant concept is that Mary and the Saints are dead and therefore cannot do anything for us, how is that St. John sees angels and saints actually giving up our prayers before an altar to God?

Another time in Scripture that we see spirits communicating with the living is at the time of Jesus' death when the veil in the sanctuary is torn. Matthew 27:51-53, states the following:

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Here too again we see that God ALLOWED spirits to visit some people in Jerusalem! He allowed it specifically due to the fact that Christ had broken the chains of death through His miraculous resurrection and, it is precisely because of His passion and raising from the dead that we are able to be united to our heavenly family in the celestial court. Hence, God is not against the notion that humans can communicate with the Saints and Mary through the mediation of Christ. Therefore, us offering up our prayers to the Saints in heaven, as well as Mary, is not unbiblical; the idea that such a thing is somehow against true Christian thinking, however, is.

@0:23-0:38 "...I think there are thousands, perhaps millions, of people within the Roman Catholic Church who are really trusting in Christ and Christ alone for their salvation and not trusting the way of salvation their own Church teaches."

Where do we explicitly find in the Bible that the belief in "Christ and Christ alone" is necessary for salvation? Indeed, Scripture NEVER mentions this as the only means of salvation! Let's go through the laundry list of necessary things for salvation per the Bible:

John 3:51 Peter 3:21 & Titus 3:5 state that what is needed for salvation is baptism!
Acts 2:38-41 & 2 Peter 3:9 state that salvation comes by repentance!
1 Timothy 2:4 & Hebrews 10:26 state that we must come to the knowledge of truth!
Romans 2:6-7 & James 2:24 mention works!
Acts 15:11 & Ephesians 2:8 say that what is needed is grace!
Romans 5:9 & Hebrews 9:22 say that we are saved by His blood!
2 Corinthians 3:6 states that it comes by the work of the Spirit!
Romans 5:17 state that we are saved by His righteousness!
Ephesians 2:16 & Colossians 2:14 mention that we are saved by His Cross!
Luke 12:8 & Romans 10:9 state that one is saved by declaring it with our mouths!
Matthew 19:16-17 states that in order to get salvation, one must keep the Commandments!

And of course,

John 3:16 & Acts 16:31 state that salvation comes from believing in Christ!*

And, lest we forget,

John 6:53-54 states that salvation comes from the Eucharist!

Whew! It would seem that simply believing in "Christ and Christ alone" as the sole path to salvation is not only unbiblical but, anti-biblical. Sorry Mr. Sproul! Only the Catholic Church recognizes ALL of these as means of salvation since the beginning of it's foundation close to 2,000 years ago!

@0:51-1:58, R.C. Sproul states that the Catholic Church denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ...due to the fact that we're not Protestants.

Having read and listened to numerous writings and recordings of R.C. Sproul over the last 3-1/2 years, I can unambiguously state that, Sproul has a HUGE issue with the fact that the Catholic Church does not believe in the wholly Protestant heretical invention of sola fide, that is faith aloneAs noted above, the notion that only a belief in Christ is needed for salvation doesn't hold water, and Sproul - like many Protestants - has convinced himself that sola fide is the means by which we are saved. Not believing in sola fide (along with several other solas) is the biggest bugaboo that Sproul always likes to cite and he uses the Council of Trent as the springboard from which to sling these ill-conceived and historically inaccurate lies. 

Sproul simply loves to call attention to Trent, which outright condemned the many heretical notions of the Protestant "reformation" that were going on through Europe at the time. Let's get one thing straight, there is no way for me to go through the all of the documents of Trent in order to prove this point for it would completely take this post off of the main issues that this video alleges. Therefore, I will not go into all the Sessions and Canons of Trent, instead, I will solely focus on why sola fide - as a lone rule of faith needed to be saved and to proclaim Christ's true Gospel - was correctly addressed and admonished in Session 6 of the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic Church. 

To begin with, Session 6 of Trent laid out the Catholic Church's unwavering position on Justification. In a nutshell, Justification is what we, as sons and daughters of God, must do in order to be made righteous before God; Justification is an important theological concept because, once we are justified, we can attain salvation for we are within God's good graces. While I won't be getting into the topic of Justification either, there are some points that need to be made from the Council of Trent, first among those is the fact that the Catholic Church believes that faith justifies man. That's right, man is made righteous through faith! As Chapter 8 of the Sixth Session at Trent states (my emphasis added):

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely (Rom. 3:24 & Rom. 5:1), these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6)...

As the Catholic Church explains, faith is the beginning, foundation, and root of all justification, hence, faith is an integral part of Justificatioin. Now, how does this not jive with the Protestant invention of sola fide that Sproul holds to? Simply put, the Catholic Church believes in fide without the sola, that is, faith is an indispensible and prominent ingredient in justifying the individual but, IT IS NOT sufficient in order to make a person righteous before God in and of itself. As Chapter 9 and 10 continues on to say (my emphasis added):

...it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted nor ever have been remitted except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ's sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins...

Moreover, it must not be maintained that they who are truly justified must, without any doubt whatever, convince themselves that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sins and justified...by this faith alone - as if he who does not believe this, doubts the promises of God and the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ....

...Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with christ, that he may be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17).

As Canon #9 of Trent so bluntly puts it:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...let him be anathema.

In other words, faith is needed but, faith alone ain't gonna cut it. And why can't faith - in and of itself - not be enough to merit the grace of justification? Simply put, people of faith fall into sin and, when a person of faith falls into sin they lose the grace that God has bestowed upon them and must therefore regain justification again in order to get back into God's good graces.

This is the raison d'etre for so many Protestant denominations and this is the main reason why Sproul states that the Catholic Church is apostate. For many Protestants, being justified before God is a one-time event that never goes away nor fades. It can be as simple as "accepting Him as your Lord and Savior," or by "giving yourself up to the Lord" or, responding to the altar call or, by saying a simple prayer like the "Sinners Prayer." This one-time event magically credits you and your belief in Christ - whatever it may be - as just before God. How sophomoric and how insulting to God; to think that by simply believing in Jesus and saying a few words which acknowledge that you believe in Him automatically confer salvation and, to top it all off, this salvation cannot be undone. This erroneous position is not only anti-Scriptural but goes against the first 1600 years of Christian history! 

For the average Protestant like Mr. Sproul, the simple thought that they can lose salvation through their own fault is too shocking an idea to even entertain therefore, they have invented a belief system in which belief itself is the only necessary thing needed in order to be saved and, once you've accepted and believe in the power of Christ, you're assured of your eternal salvation regardless of the heinous sins that you may commit thereafter; losely stated, once you believe, truly believe, in Christ, nothing can disinherit you from the Kingdom of God. Oh, if it were only that easy! 

Most Protestants simply cannot wrap their minds around the fact that a person can not only fall out of God's good graces but, they can - in fact - totally lose their heavenly reward. As the Bible states and I will now demonstrate, ANYONE can fall out of salvation even if they are/were justified, NOT BECAUSE GOD REJECTS THE PERSON but, BECAUSE THE PERSON REJECTS GOD'S SANCTIFYING GRACE. Additionally, Eternal Assurance is not - NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN - backed up by the Scriptures. One need only look at what Christ says in the Book of Revelation in order to prove that NO ONE is assured of salvation.

In the 2nd and 3rd chapter of Revelation, Christ is telling St. John to record and relay several messages to the 7 churches in Asia Minor, among those messages is a very telling passage that makes absolutely no sense if one holds to the "nothing can unsave me because I believe" mentality. In Revelation 3:5 Christ says the following:

"He that overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels."

In other words, Jesus "will not blot out" the names of those who already believe and - here's the kicker - REMAIN faithful. This statement itself is sufficient enough to prove that those who do not persist in the faith won't be named in the book of life but, of even more importance, is what Jesus infers here. He states that he "will not blot out" the faithful's name, meaning, that if He has the capacity of not blotting out names of those who think themselves to be faithful Christians, He also has the ability to blot out the names of the very same people; keep in mind who Jesus is talking to here: He's not talking to pagans, atheists or unbelievers, HE'S TALKING TO THE 7 CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR!!! He's talking to the Churches filled with people who believe in Him and He is telling them that they must not only believe but REMAIN faithful and repent in order to receive the reward of Heaven! Think about those early Christian believers in those 7 churches which, sacred Tradition holds that St. John himself was the bishop of, and then think about the fact that even the members of those churches, who are being shepherded by the Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross, that even those early believers in Christ aren't assured of their salvation unless they persist in the faith constantly and continually! How is it possible then that these early believers of Christ are told BY CHRIST HIMSELF that they may be "blotted out" of salvation if, according to sola fide Protestants, all they ever needed was to believe in Christ and Christ alone? According to the words of Christ they weren't really saved, and yet, modern day sola fide Protestants are? Gimme a break. 

Still think that by simply believing, a Christian is saved and cannot lose their salvation? Well in John 15:5-6, Jesus states otherwise. He says (my emphasis added): 

"I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him - this one bears much fruit, for apart from me you are not able to do anything. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and dries up, and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

In other words, Jesus is stating that if someone who, at one point, believed and abided within Him loses faith and no longer believes, that person is cast out regardless of the fact that they, at one point, believed. This message is the same as the previous one mentioned in Revelation: one must believe but one must stay steadfast and faithful, if not, they risk falling out of the graces of God. In Matthew 13:18-23, Jesus interprets the parable of the Sower and the Seed and, in verses 20-21, we hear Jesus state the following (my emphasis added):

"But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles."

So, some Christians receive the Word of God with great joy and, for a time, they believe. However, when things get difficult, they stop believing and they fall away. So, what happens to the seed that lands upon "the stony place?" According to Christ, in verse 6 He states that they will be "scorched" and will "wither away." The Alpha and Omega explicitly states that you can indeed lose your faith and, if you do, your destiny is not in heaven but in hell, where you will be scorched and wither away. In Matthew 5:13, Christ is addressing the crowd at the Sermon of the Mound and he says:

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men."

Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, states here that those who believe in Him and His words are "the salt of the earth" but, what happens if this belief is lost? Then those who were once "seasoned" are good for nothing and to be thrown out! In Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus tells us the parable of the 10 Virgins who were awaiting the bridegroom in order to enter into the wedding feast. In this parable, the oil represents the Holy Spirit, the virgins represent Christians, the lighted lamp represents the faith, hope and belief we have in Christ and, the bridegroom naturally represents Jesus. Here we see that half of the young maidens didn't bring enough oil as they awaited the bridegroom in order to enter the wedding party together. His delay causes them all to fall asleep and, at midnight, the bridegroom finally starts to make his way toward the party at which point the 5 lazy virgins realize that they don't have enough oil and cannot trim their lamps. They plead with the other 5 virgins who brought enough oil for themselves and are told that there is not enough oil for all of them and that they should go and buy some more oil from the merchants and, when they come back, the door to the party is locked; at verses 10-13 we read:

And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us!" But he answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you."

Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

As you can see, the lazy maidens - at one point - where filled with belief in the bridegroom (Jesus) and His feast but, as they sat around waiting, they fell asleep and, their faith faded. They then weren't burning for His love as they once were and, as a result, they were left out of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Again, we see the same motif, you once had faith and believed but, you lost your belief and lost your salvation along with it. Our Blessed Lord says you can lose your salvation, Protestants say otherwise, who are we to believe?

Still think your salvation is assured? St. Paul begs to differ. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, we read (my emphasis added):

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you - unless you believed in vain.

Basically, St. Paul states that IF you hold firmly to the word he has preached, you are saved. IF you don't then you believed in vain and are not saved. So, if one believes in what St. Paul is teaching and accepts the Gospel of Christ but doesn't remain faithful, then that person, according to St. Paul, loses salvation even though they once believed. In Romans 11:22, St. Paul says (my emphasis added):

Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Translation: continue to do God's work and believe in Him if not, you're cut out of His good graces; that little word "if" has a huge implication if someone loses sight of Jesus' message, doesn't it? Finally we see in Philippians 2:12 St. Paul says:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Wait, what? "Work out" your salvation? Why didn't Paul just tell the Church at Philippi, that has always obeyed according to him, not to worry because, after all, they're saved! They're obeying and they're believing, right? So why doesn't Paul simply state that they should rejoice for they are all saved since they believe? Again, I have to ask, who should we believe, sola fide Protestants or the Apostle Paul? Okay so maybe those crazy Philippians weren't saved but, surely, St. Paul himself had to of been saved, right? I mean he was ship wrecked, beaten and stoned as well as imprisoned and suffered martyrdom for Christ; if anyone merited salvation, it was Paul and yet, this is what he says in 2 Timothy 4:7:

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Why did St. Paul even boyher to say this toward the end of his life if he was assured of his salvation? If he was already saved, why did the Holy Spirit inspire him to even mention this? Boy, St. Paul sure was dumb, wasn't he? He could've learned a couple of things from modern day Protestants, don't you think? After all that Paul went through and even he wasn't assured of his own salvation, how can any Protestant claim otherwise? How prideful and arrogant.

Lastly, let me address the "once saved always saved" Protestant retort from John 10:27-29, which states:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.

For the Protestant who believes in Eternal Assurance via sola fide, this passage would seem to vindicate that teaching. While nothing OUTSIDE of the believer can remove them from Christ, who is to say that the believer cannot REMOVE THEMSELVES from Christ? In other words, nothing can take you away from Christ except yourself - you can forfeit salvation by your actions and, if there be any doubt, St. Paul tells us the following in Hebrews 10:26-27:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation...

And, my personal passage that proves that once you believe you are not saved, Romans 13:11:

"...for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed."

I would really like to know how to reconcile that verse with the Protestant notion of sola fide; how is it that we can get closer to salvation if in fact all we need is a one-time belief-event that justifies and saves us? If in fact we believe and are saved, why did Paul state that salvation was nearer then when he first believed? Did Paul not really believe in the beginning of his ministry and only later come to truly believe and therefore found salvation closer then it was before? Were the believers of the church at Rome already saved when Paul wrote this, if so, why even mention that salvation is now closer then it was before if they were already saved? These are the tough questions that faith alone Protestants must answer if they subscribe to the sola fide as the primary virtue that attains salvation for the believer. 

As for the Catholic Church, she has always held what the bible has taught in terms of being saved and that is, that not all are saved regardless of their belief in Christ (see Matthew 7:13-14, Matthew 22:14, Luke 13:22-27, Romans 9:27). She has always stated that one must not only have faith but, continue to be sanctified in order for us to become perfect as Christ commanded us to do in Matthew 5:48, hence the need for the Sacraments - remember, the Sacraments DO NOT SAVE, they sanctify us in order to be more Godly and attain salvation (see CCC #1123). In order to demonstrate that this was, and has always been, the teaching of the Catholic Church, here are some quotes from just a few famous Catholics pre-Council of Trent:

"The majority of men shall not see God, excepting those who live justly, purified by righteousness and by every other virtue."
-St. Justin Martyr, 150 A.D. Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 4

"The following words of the Gospel, 'many are called, but few are chosen' cannot but inspire us with terror; for many receive the light of faith, but to a few only is granted the happiness of heaven."
- Pope St. Gregory the Great, 570 A.D. Homily on Matthew 20:1-16.

"Christ's flock is called 'little' (Luke 12:32) in comparison with the greater number of reprobates."
- St. Bede the Venerable

"Faith is indeed great and brings salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. Itsuffices not however of itself to accomplish this, but there in need of a right conversion...after they had accomplished the most part of the journey, when they were at the very doors, at the haven itself, they were sunk into the sea. This I fear for you also. This [the meaning of] after the same example of unbelief."
- St. John Chrysostom, 360 A.D.  Sermon on Hebrews 4:11-13

"It is certain that few are saved."
- St. Augustine, 418 A.D. Sermon 61 On The New Testament

"I exhort you, therefore, not to faint in your afflictions, but to be revived by God's love, and to add daily to your zeal, knowing that in you ought to be preserved that remnant of true religion which the Lord will find when He comes on the earth."
- St. Basil the Great, 360 A.D. 257th Letter

"One day, St. Macarius found a skull and asked it whose head it had been. "A pagan's!" it replied. "And where is your soul?" he asked. "In Hell!" came the reply. Marcarius then asked the skull if its place was very deep in Hell. "As far down as the earth is lower than Heaven!" "And are there any other souls lodge even lower?" "Yes! The souls of the Jews!" "And even lower than the Jews?" "Yes! The souls of bad Christians who were redeemed with the blood of Christ and held there privilege so cheaply!" 
- Blessed James of Voragine, 1260 A.D. Golden Legend, The Life of St. Marcarius

"Those who are saved, are in the minority."
- St. Thomas Aquinas, 1265 A.D. Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, question 23



END OF PART 1




*Note that these two passages when read in context refer to baptism as a means of salvation through the belief in Christ. In John 3:1-8, clearly demonstrates that water baptism is needed in order to be "born again" and attain salvation; the same thing is noted again in John 3:22-23 when Jesus and company go baptizing and, in the latter verses, we see that St. John the Baptizer states that it is the belief in Christ which saves. In other words, John 3 has a certain motif: baptism (verses 1-8), salvation (verses 12-18), baptism (verses 22-26), salvation (verses 27-36). In Acts 16 we see that, here too, baptism plays a role within the context of believing in Christ, in verses 30-33 we see that the belief is accompanied by baptism.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Sola Scriptura? Part 2

I've had such a great response from the last post, that I have decided to continue this post as a series! So, instead of giving you one or two little quotes from an Early Church Father, I will give you several so-called sola-scriptura quotes so that we may be able to analyzed them; in this manner if any Protestant ever tells quotes from a specific work from the Patristics, you'll be able to refer back to these posts and see how to properly defend the Catholic faith! This will be the second part of the series and I will post more on the Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura in the future. As for now, let us look at 2 more Early Church Fathers who Protestants claim believed in the Bible Alone.

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after the truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” 
                                                       – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Chapter 16

Yet another widely used quote to demonstrate that the Early Church believed in sola scriptura as far back as the late 2nd century. Unfortunately this quote undoes the Protestant belief in scripture alone when we read, just a few paragraphs down, the following (my emphasis added):

“And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.”

My humble reader, if St. Clement of Alexandria states that taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT and using them as a weapon in a theological argument is a heresy, well then, I suggest to you that this is THE definition of Bible-alone Protestantism! Far too often do we see Protestants quoting a particular verse or a particular passage when attempting to substantiate a Protestant belief, doctrine or dogma. This crucial and fundamental Protestant tactic is to be, therefore, done away with per St. Clement for – as he stated – IT IS a heresy. Hence, ANY Protestant that attempts to quote a Church Father or a Bible verse by proof-reading the text is wholly committing a heretical act and should be called out on it! BUT, more importantly is what St. Clement says just a couple paragraphs afterwards (my emphasis added):

“…through the propensity to sloth, they push truth away, or through the desire of fame, endeavor to invent novelties. For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scripture from the Scripture themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed Apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the Divine Tradition by human teachings, in order to establish heresy.”

In other words, heretics do two things: they give their own personal meaning to the Scriptures by not using Scripture properly and, they deny the orally inspired words of the Apostles and their disciples, that is, they reject Apostolic Tradition. That’s right, this Early Church Father who pro-sola scriptura Protestants like to quote, decimated the entire notion of Protestantism over 1,350 years before it was ever invented! He clearly and unambiguously stated that taking a verse out of context and rejecting Apostolic Tradition, which is the bread and butter of Protestantism, make any Christian believer a heretic.

Therefore, St. Clement of Alexandria, cannot be quoted in order to prove sola scriptura.


BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:
Need more proof that Apostolic Tradition was foundational for St. Clement of Alexandria? Look no further than the very first chapter of Stromata. Towards the middle of the first chapter, Clement is stating whom he learned the faith from and then says the following:

“…they [those who taught  St. Clement] preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the Holy Apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father, came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed Tradition.”

Basically, right from the beginning of Clement’s Stromata, he espouses the authority of Sacred Tradition and its importance in both the Church and the Scriptures!




“But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing…”
                                           – Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 6

“The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent…I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.”
                                            -Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7

“But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense no found throughout the Holy Scriptures!”                         
                                            –Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 20

“We have, however, challenged these opinions to the test, both of the arguments which sustain them, and of the Scriptures which are appealed to, and this we have done ex abundant…”                        
                                             –Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 25


(DISCLAIMER: Tertullian was a hardcore defender of the true faith for most of his life. I say was because, unfortunately, Tertullian fell into heresy later on in his life. He became a member of the heretical Monatist sect which placed some inordinate puritanical practices in lieu of new prophecies as well as false revelations from God. As such, Tertullian isn’t really an “Early Church Father” in the extreme sense of the title, much like Origen he is more of an ecclesiastical writer. However, most of his pre-Monatists works are absolute gems of Early Christianity. Therefore, I will not refer to Tertullian as an Early Church Father per say but, a Church writer instead.)

Protestants who stick to sola scriptura simply love Tertullian. More than any other 3rd century Church writer and defender, Tertullian definitely used the Holy Scriptures when attacking all forms of heresy. In particular, the quotes above are taken from his work entitled On the Flesh of Christ, or, De Carne Christi. In this work, Tertullian sets out to not only refute several heretics but, he also debunks a lot of their misunderstandings; chief among these heretics is a “Christian” named Marcion.

The Marcionites were heretics for several reasons: to begin with, they believed St. Paul to have been Christ’s head Apostle instead of Peter, they denied the Incarnation, and they believed that there were 2 gods - a good god and a bad god. They reasoned from Scriptures that there was a bad god during the time of the Old Testament and there was another god during the time of the New Testament, that is, during the time of Christ. As such they stated that Christ could not be the Son of the God of the Jews primarily due to the fact that Christianity was the New Covenant and anything that had to do with the Judaism had to be discarded…that included the entirety of the Old Testament!

That’s right, Marcion rejected outright the Old Testament due to its antiquated cruelty and rudimentary practices. Marcion therefore theorized that this Old Testament god was not the Supreme God but a lesser god. The real issue for Marcion then became in how to reconcile the New Testament verses that reference the Old Testament and, much like the grand heretic that he was, Marcion edited out all text that ran contrary to his beliefs. In other words, Marcion created his own personal New Testament; which consisted in having only eleven of Paul’s epistles and one Gospel which he edited, that of St. Luke.

Therefore once we realize who, CONTEXTUALLY SPEAKING, Tertullian is addressing in these quotes, is it any wonder as to why Tertullian quotes from the Scriptures so much??? Think about it, Tertullian is fighting against a heresy that not only negates the existence of one Creator but, has discarded ALL of the Hebrew Scriptures and has settled with a mutilated version of the New Testament. Is it really that surprising that Tertullian would rely so heavily on the true Scriptures when combating a heretic who mangled Scriptures to fit his personal ideology? Of course not!!! 

These proof-read quotes of Tertullian don’t prove sola scriptura for two reasons: 1) Tertullian NEVER states that Scripture in and of itself is what is needed in order to disprove heretical and conflicting dogma. In other words, he never states that the Scriptures are the only thing to be used to justify a belief or practice and, that brings us to the next reason: 2) Tertullian was a HUGE believer in Apostolic Tradition and the Church as sources of genuine authority. So much so, that he uses Apostolic Oral Tradition as a means of justifying the authentic Scriptures! In chapter 2 of On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian states that Marcion has rejected the Scriptures which were “handed down” and “transmitted” from the Apostles themselves (my emphasis added):

“…I suppose you have had, O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of history) of Christ, that His flesh may lose the proofs of is reality. But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if a follower of apostles, side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us…What you believed to be of a different character, had been handed down just as you [once] believe it. Now that which had been handed down was true, in asmuch as it had been transmitted by those whose duty it was to hand it down. Therefore, when rejecting that which had been handed down, you reject that which was true. You had no authority for what you did.”

The one thing we must remember is that the Apostles DID NOT have a Bible, therefore when they spoke, they spoke God-inspired revelation and, it is precisely this oral transmission that Tertullian says was “handed down” and “transmitted” in a truthful manner via the Apostles. How do we know that this is what Tertullian is saying? Well in Prescription Against Heresies, another anti-Marcionian work of Tertullian, chapter 20 states that unless a church was founded by an Apostle, it is a heretical church and therefore cannot have the truth:

“…they [the Apostles] obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the traditions of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification.”

What Tertullian just said should send shivers up the spines of any Protestant who dares to make the claim that Tertullian was a pro-sola scriptura believer! For unless the Protestant can make a historically accurate claim that their church, doctrines and tradition all stem from the Apostles, as Tertullian claims, they shouldn’t even be calling themselves Christians! Indeed, according to Tertullian, they shouldn’t even be using nor reading the Christian Scriptures!

So how, therefore, can we tell what is and isn’t an Apostolic Church? Well, in chapter 32 of Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian states the #1 thing that makes a church a true church is succession. That’s right, the pivotal Catholic practice of succession is what this Early Church writer stated is the hallmark of Christ’s true church and not a heretical church. In chapter 32 he says:

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men..For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit, whom, as having been appointed to their Episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for it author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man…”

There is only one modern day Church that can trace its heritage back to not only the apostolic era but, to Christ himself and, if you do believe in sola scriptura, then you are not part of that Church. Because obviously, Tertullian didn’t believe that the Bible alone was or is the sole source of authority, he held Tradition and the Church as valid sources of authority – just like the Catholic Church does so today. Tertullian himself believed wholly Catholic ideas; for instance, he believed that the true Christian must be baptized with water, he believed in Holy Orders, the true Christian has to do the sign of the cross, and receives the Sacrament of Confirmation as well as the fact that the true Christian is sanctified through the Eucharist. Proof of each of these things are noted by Tertullian in On the Resurrection of the Flesh chapter 8:

“The flesh is washed in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed with the cross, that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God.”

Sorry Protestants, but that’s what the Catholic Church has always believed in and still, to this day, practices. Hence, Tertullian IS NOT an authoritative claim in favor of sola scriptura.

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:
He is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Latin Christianity” and is also the oldest Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Trinitas) as well as giving the oldest known explanation of the Trinitarian doctrine.  


End of Part 2

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Sola Scriptura? Part 1

Sola Scriptura is the basis for many a Protestant heresy. It explicitly states that the Bible alone contains all knowledge for salvation and holiness, that is, the Bible is the complete and authoritative rule for the Christian. Many, if not most, of all Protestant denominations today strictly adhere to this unbiblical doctrine; indeed, one must definitely find it most curious that the Bible itself NEVER once mentions such a thing nor does it ever point to itself as the sole rule of faith! Therefore, in order to offer validity to this most unbiblical doctrine, Protestant theologians have attempted to demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers - who were without a doubt Catholic - were believers in Sola Scriptura.

Now, why would Protestants want to do such a thing? Well, truth be told, Protestants need to do this because of Protestantism itself! What do I mean by this? Let me explain...

You see, Protestants have a REALLY big issue and that issue is that they don't have the historical evidence to back up their personal belief system. Their pedigree only extends to the founding or, in some cases, invention of their church and their doctrines. As such, when any Protestant denomination attempts to show some form of historicity within their congregation, they can only - at the very most - extend the founding of their church to the mid-1500's when Martin Luther established or, better stated, invented his personal brand of Christianity. Attempting to apply ANY Protestant belief before the 1500's is simply a fool's game. However, that has never stopped some foolhardy Protestants from trying to take their man-made and humanly inspired theological whims and attempting to affix them in the Early [Catholic] Church.

Therefore, it is my main objective in this post to absolutely and categorically demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers WERE NOT adherents to this heretical notion. I will be posting quotes from the Early Fathers from several Protestant websites which have labeled them as proof of Sola Scriptura among the Patristics and then I will show how easy it is to refute any attempts to cast their doctrines upon our Church members.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”    St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3: Chapter 1, paragraph 1

Uh oh! An Early Church Father proclaiming that the Scriptures are where we get the plan for salvation as well as being the foundation of our faith! And, since the Scriptures say nothing about needing Sacraments in order to be saved, the Catholic Church’s Sacramental system is not needed! Well, unfortunately for an anti-Catholic Protestant, there are at least two things that we need to take a look at when analyzing these so-called sola scriptura Early Church Father quotes; first we need to see the quote IN CONTEXT. Protestants are notorious at taking verses out of context in order to make a point, therefore I would suggest to you that the very first thing we must look at is the CONTEXT of the quote. Secondly, we must see if there is any contradiction with established Scripture and the text; often times, Protestants who have little to no knowledge of Christian history are quick to accept a teaching offered by an Early Church Father that parallels their personal ideology but, rarely do Protestants go beyond a quote and a verse - and in doing so, they misinterpret what the Early Church Father said.

St. Irenaeus wrote the third book of Against Heresies in the late 2nd Century, it therefore should automatically behoove us to know what the first 2 books were about and how it is that they tie into the third. If one were to read the first book of Against Heresies, one would realize that St. Irenaeus sets out to debunk Gnosticism and, in the first book, he tends to illustrate the absurdity of Gnosticim by briefly remarking on how Gnosticism makes no practical sense and then demonstrating how only true Christianity confirms the truth that they oppose. In the Second book, Irenaeus goes back and instead of giving brief retorts to Gnostic heresies, he goes into great depth at fully discrediting them, this all leads up to the third book which begins by delving into doctrine more directly.

As you can see, there is a method to St. Irenaeus’ madness as he starts off with simple retorts in order to set up a much larger blitz against Gnosticism. This is the mindset that we MUST have in order to fully understand St. Irenaeus as he begins his third book. This first paragraph is entitled:

“The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.”

Easily seen is that St. Irenaeus is going to talk about how, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles were able to preach the Gospel. This has NOTHING to do Sola Scriptura and everything to do with demonstrating to the Gnostics that there is only one God! In other words, the quote from up top that Protestants use to demonstrate sola scriptura - when taken IN CONTEXT - is NOT being used to prove sola scripturaAdditionally, any Protestant that dares to misquote St. Irenaeus here is unwittingly legitimizing the Catholic doctrine of Oral Tradition! Because, after all, it was through the oral preaching of the Apostles and their disciples that the early Church was able to understand who Jesus was and how He came to offer mankind salvation as well as how he was to be worshipped.

Without going too much into it, the Catholic Church has always maintained that the Magisterium (“office of the teachers”) was started by the 11 Apostles when Christ commissioned them to go and preach and baptize in Matthew 28:16-20. When Christ Ascended into heaven, he left the Apostles the power to teach with authority but, more importantly, they could not err since they would always have Jesus with them, “until the end of time.” Hence, when the Apostles taught and spoke on matters of faith they were preserved from ever teaching something wrong because God Himself was there with them. We also see this again in John 14:26, when Jesus promises His Apostles that they will remember all that He has taught them through the power of the Holy Spirit.

This Magisterial body of the Apostles had the authority to determine what was right and what was heretical by virtue of being established by Christ Himself and, this same body of Christ’s disciples, continues to this day within the confines of the Catholic Church – the only Christian church that can date itself to the time of Christ and, the only Christian church that can undoubtedly state that it was founded by St. Peter, the Head Apostle. As Catholics, we see the Magisterium, not only as one of our 3 sources of authority but, as a conduit for the living word of God to flow from; this teaching is wholly absent in Protestantism since no non-Catholic denomination can claim such a thing, as such we as Catholics see the teaching of the Magisterium as unerring since it is in fact inspired by God…in the same way that the Bible is.

And, it is this very thing that St. Irenaeus is attempting to demonstrate! As stated earlier, the third book of his Against Heresies goes into Church doctrine and, as we take a closer look at what the first paragraph states, we see that Irenaeus is attempting to make evident that only the authority of the Apostles – as it was given to them by Christ and is handed down via succession – is a doctrine of Christ’s true church! Let’s read a little bit more of St. Irenaeus’ commentary and see just how the Protestant tends to neuter his words for their benefit:

“…For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say… For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men...”

Here Irenaeus is stating that the deposit of faith given to the Apostles was perfect because the Holy Spirit imparted to them all the adequate knowledge that they needed. He then goes on to say that the true written Gospels come only from the 4 Evangelists:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect…Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Now, I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say: “See! There’s proof right there that Irenaeus used Scripture in order to prove his point! So Scripture is indeed the end-all for the true Christian!” Well, if in fact you hold to this opinion, then let us continue to the 2nd chapter of Book 3 and see what St. Irenaeus says about Scripture; like I said before, ALL of this must be read in CONTEXT and not piecemeal. In the continuing chapter, we see that Irenaeus decided to entitle it:

“The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition”

Whoa! St. Irenaeus wouldn’t be equating tradition with Scripture now, would he? Well, in the 2nd paragraph of Chapter 2 we read the following:

“…when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition…”

Uh oh. There’s that distinctly Catholic word, “succession” and even more Catholic, it speaks about succession of priests in the Church as they hold on to tradition. Here it is unambiguously stated that tradition, which the Gnostics (and to a greater extent modern-day Protestants) reject, is needed in order to justify the authority of the Scriptures and, it is precisely this tradition which dictates what is and is not bone fided Holy Writ. This is very important for 2 reasons: one, it demonstrates that the Scriptures came from tradition, that is, oral Tradition validated the written Word and not vice-versa. Two, it shows that in the Early Church, no set of Scriptures were needed due to the fact that the Apostles and their successors had the unerring ability to preach orally inspired messages when they spoke and, it was this unerring oral message that eventually was written down and formed Holy Writ.

In the continuing chapter, chapter 3 of Book 3, St. Irenaeus pulls no punches in stating that succession from the Apostles is of the utmost importance. He states:

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times… [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

St. Irenaeus then goes on to mention the 3 Popes who came after St. Peter:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…”

That’s right, the man named Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 would eventually become the second leader of the Catholic Church, i.e., the Pope. And the man mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3, Clement, would become the 4th Pope to lead the Catholic Church! In other words, 3 of the first 4 men who would become the Bishop of Rome are mentioned in Scripture! Now, why am I stressing this so much? Well, plainly stated, if in fact one wants to equate sola scriptura to St. Ireneaus based on the aforementioned quote then why not also accept the fact that St. Ireneaus strictly observed and defended the succession of Popes who led the Church that he belonged to?

Indeed, to accept Ireneaus as an authority for the validity of sola scriptura is to accept Irenaeus as an authority for the Catholic doctrine of tradition and succession of Popes. To not accept both and merely the former is to dishonestly attempt to prove that St. Irenaeus believed in the Bible alone and not the tenements of Catholicism!

Lastly, we must also point out that – if a Protestant wants to take St. Ireneaus’ quote as vindication for using Scripture alone, they themselves are actually going against what the Bible teaches. In the last line of St. Irenaeus’ quote, he says that Scripture was “handed down to us” and that the Scriptures are to be “the ground and pillar of our faith.” The pro-sola scriptura Protestant will immediately pounce on this notion however, what St. Irenaeus has just stated is at odds with what Scripture itself states. 1 Timothy 3:15 states:

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

So now we have a contradiction. On the one hand, sola scriptura believers will say that Irenaeus is proof that the Early Church recognized Scripture as being the “ground and pillar” of the Christian faith. But, on the other hand, Scripture explicitly dictates that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” So, which is it? A man states that Scripture is the basis and yet Scripture commends the truth to the Church! The only way to reconcile these is to accept the fact that St. Irenaeus did this on purpose in order to equate the Church, which was founded upon Peter and lives through the succession of leaders, with the Scriptures which were born from the Apostolic Traditions. Basically, the only way to square this apparent contradiction is to accept the Catholic position!

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:
If any Protestant wants to use this quote by St. Ireneaus, remember the Catholic teaching of orally inspired teaching because, after all, Irenaeus explicitly says that the Gospels was "at one time" proclaimed in public BEFORE it was written down! This gives firm proof that oral teaching was a basis for determining what was and was not inspired Scripture.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4, paragraph 17

This is one of the often used verses from St. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures that Protestants use to showcase an Early Church Father as being a Bible only believing Christian. Cyril’s 4th Lecture is specifically geared toward addressing 10 different points of doctrine and, it is while talking upon the aspects of the Holy Spirit that St. Cyril makes the statement which sounds distinctly pro-sola scriptura. In CONTEXT, it is obvious that Cyril holds that Scripture is Holy Writ due to the fact that it came from the Prophets via the Holy Spirit. However, it is when we ask ourselves, “what are the Scriptures that Cyril speaks of?” that the Protestant desire of a sola scriptura Early Church Father comes crashing down.

One need only continue on to the 33 paragraph of Cyril’s 4th Catechetical Lecture to see that St. Cyril addresses the Divine Scriptures. In paragraph 33, we also find another Protestant favorite line, see if you can spot it. In paragraph 33 we read:

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed?...”

This would be a dagger to any Catholic! Here we have an Early Church Father stating that we are to read the Bible and not the apocryphal (deuterocanonicals) books that we Catholics have in our Bibles! But, fret not my dear reader for what Cyril says next is even more shocking (my emphasis added):

“Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the 72 interpreters...of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings…strive to remember them by name as I recite them. For the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth book…the first and second Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second Esdras are counted as one. Esther is the twelfth book…Job and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book…Isaiah…Jeremiah…including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

And now the Protestant proponent of St. Cyril as being a sola scriptura believer has a dilemma: If the Protestant Bible contains 39 books in the Old Testament how is it that St. Cyril, the ancient authority that is being used to demonstrate sola scriptura, only mentioned that there are ONLY 22 books? What happened to the other 17 books found in the Protestant bibles? Additionally, if a Protestant wants to make the charge that St. Cyril said we shouldn’t read the apocryphal books, then why did he mention the Book of Baruch in his list of Old Testament books? Go ahead, ask any Protestant to turn to the Baruch and they’ll never be able to find it, why? Because this is one of the 7 apocryphal books that Martin Luther discarded when he compiled his abridged bible; the very same abridged bible used by Protestants today! Plus, St. Cyril never mentions the Book of Revelation in his list of New Testament books in paragraph 36 of Lecture 4!

So, it is quite clear then that there is a contradiction here: on the one hand, Protestants claim that St. Cyril was a sola scriptura adherent. But, on the other hand, the Old Testament list of books that St. Cyril describes is missing over 40% of the current books found in the Old Testament and one book out of the New Testament! So, how can we resolve this set of differences? Again, the only solution is the Catholic solution. In order to bring harmony to this dispute we must accept the fact that the Bible, as it is in its current form, had not yet been fully compiled nor canonized. It would be almost another 90 years from the time of St. Cyril that Scripture would be officially canonized at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. by Pope Damasus I.

Therefore, the list of Scriptures that Cyril had was, for all intents and purposes, a working canon at the time and, there is no doubt that, had Cyril lived after the canonization of Scripture, he too would’ve accepted ALL of the 73 books of the Bible as it was put forward by the authority of the Catholic Church.

St. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures are some of the most cited of all the Early Church Father’s for attempted proof of the doctrine of sola scriptura. In Lecture 5.12, the sola scriptura dogmatist will state that Cyril mentions how the faith came to be fully known via the Church and from the Scriptures. However, what most don’t realize is that St. Cyril, in the same paragraph goes on to describe the Nicene Creed - a distinctly Catholic Creedo - and how important it as a part of our faith! We see St. Cyril continue to defend the Nicene Creed and it’s Scriptural origin again in Lecture 13.8-9 (proves that Scripture backs up orally inspired tradition), as well as Lecture 15.13 (proves that the Church played a crucial role in authoritative interpretation) and, in Lecture 16.2 (which proves the existence of the Holy Spirit). If nothing else, this lends justification to the Catholic use of the Nicene Creed in all of our Masses as well as the wholly Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

In Lecture 12.5, many a sola scriptura upholder will note at how St. Cyril says that one should not believe the testimony of man unless it came from the Scriptures. However, this Lecture is dedicated to the Incarnation of Christ and, IN CONTEXT, St. Cyril is stating that if one does not believe in the Virgin birth, that they should check and see the prophesies of the Old Testament; IN CONTEXT, this has nothing to do with the bible being the sole authority for all things Christian and has everything to do with how the Christ was to be born of a virgin.

The one thing that must be remembered in all of the various Lectures of Cyril is that he NEVER states the supremacy or superiority of Scripture over the Church and Tradition. 

BONUS POINT OF TRUTH:
If any non-Catholic Christian wants to attempt to use St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an authoritative figure who believed in sola scriptura, ask them what do they think about St. Cyril's 23rd Lecture, entitled "On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion." In this fairly short Lecture written in the late 300's, Cyril clearly demonstrates that the Church had a liturgy which parallels the Catholic Mass! Indeed, IT IS THE MASS! Or, ask them to read St. Cyril's 22nd Lecture in which he undeniably states that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist!


End of Part 1

Monday, May 20, 2013

Sorry for the long hiatus!

Sorry for the lack of new post over the last couple of weeks but, between having a pregnant wife, having surgery and, preparing for my Confirmation class's actual confirmation, I've been to busy to share my thoughts and feelings on all of the stuff that has been going on within the faith.

I will try to get some posts that I've been working on up and running by the end of the week if not by early next week.