Throwing down the gauntlet, part 1

I just so happen to stumble upon this anti-Catholic gem on YouTube. At first, I was curious to see how these Protestants would use Christian history to tear apart the Catholic Church and what I soon noticed was that these Bible alone Protestants were taking history out of context as well as taking it from it's actual and historical perspective in addition to obscenely omitting contradictory statements, that not only disprove thier illegitimate take on history but, many times, justifies the Catholic position. These yieldings half-truths definitely makes for an interesting eccumenical opportunity for me.

Due to the lengthiness of this video, I'm going to break this post down into two consecutive parts. In order to better understand my rebuttal, I state the minute mark on the video and give a direct quote  (in bold italics) or brief synopsis (in bold). So, sit back and grab some chips and a soda; this is going to be one heck of a throw down.

@ 1:24 – “You are one of the few individuals in the Christian Church today, in the 21^st century, that has actually read the Ante-Nicaean Fathers and the Early Church Fathers writings…I want to thank you again for doing that since there are so few that have actually done that.” Whoa! This guy is one of only a few people on the planet that has actually read the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Really? Well, truth be told, I’m no seminarian nor a theologian nor a Director of Christian Research for a Christian organization but, what I can tell you is this: I’ve personally have read most of the works of the Ante-Nicean Fathers - as a Catholic it is part of my heritage to know these works, indeed, every Christian ought to know these works, it’s part of our history! These works aren’t locked away and hidden in some Vatican vault, the works of all of the Church Fathers are available at bookstores, libraries and online; these aren’t some esoteric works that will confuse the average Christian, quite the contrary: these works help to illuminate and elucidate some of the most critical, fundamental and profound doctrines in all of Christianity.

I simply find it amazing that Protestants tend to simply skip the first 1,500 years of Christianity and use the Reformation as a starting point for all things Christian. This is not only intellectually dishonest but an attempt to circumvent the history, credence, majesty and glory of the Catholic Church. Personally, I think that some Protestants are prevented and even discouraged from reading these writings – heaven forbid they realize that the Early Church was so Catholic, right?

@ 5:43-7:20 – Director of Research, Steve Morrison, goes through a list of Old Testament writings that some of the Ante-Nicaean Fathers quote in their writings. Is this supposed to somehow make the Early Fathers “bible-only Christians” because they quoted from the Old Testament? How absurd. The simple fact that they quote from Hebrew Scripture is totally redundant because the vast majority of the Early Church Fathers were all Jews, therefore, it would’ve been completely alien for any Jew NOT to know of the Old Testament! Additionally, since the Bible – as we know it today – wasn’t canonized until about the year 400, these Early Fathers HAD TO use the only available bona fide scriptures that were available to them and use these known scripture passages as proof of Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

One has to wonder though, why didn’t Mr. Morrison quote the Early Church Fathers who used passages from the Deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) – you know, those 7 books that Protestants are missing from their version of their bible? No mention of how St. Barnabas quotes the second chapter of the Book of Wisdom in his epistle in 74 A.D.? Why no mention of St. Clement of Rome when he quotes the twelfth book of Wisdom in his Epistle to the Corinthians around 80 A.D.? How about Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philadelphians written about 134 A.D. which directly quotes the Book of Tobit? Or, how about St. Irenaeus who quotes from the 13^th chapter of the Book of Daniel (Protestant bibles don’t have a 13^th chapter!) in his Against Heresies Volume 4, written in 189 A.D.? How about St. Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel, penned around 204 A.D., which also mentions the 13^th Chapter of Daniel? How about St. Cyprian of Carthage usage of quotations from the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees in the seventh volume of his Treatises written in 248 A.D. or, his usage of Chapter 14 of the Book of Daniel in his Letters circa 253 A.D.?

How ironic that the average Protestant will readily and proudly proclaim that the Deuterocanonical books aren’t inspired because a disgruntled monk unilaterally threw them out of established Scripture in the mid 1500’s and yet the same average Protestant will come away with a sense of inspiration after reading books from Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Max Lucado or the heretical “Left Behind” books.

@ 7:20 – Steve Morrison demonstrates that St. Barnabas, in his epistle, quotes from the Old Testament. Once again, these Early Christians were Hebrews so they had full knowledge of the Old Testament. This in no way makes them sola scriptura believers! The most telling thing about this is the fact that Barnabas WAS A LEVITE! That’s right, St. Barnabas came from the tribe that God decreed His priests should come from in accordance with the Old Covenant. So, is it really so unusual that St. Barnabas quoted from Hebrew Scriptures?

@ 7:43 – Steve Morrison demonstrates that St. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, quotes the Old Testament. Mr. Morrison chose to quote from the 107^th Chapter of Dialogue with Trypho and yet, he failed to mention other more interesting chapters; like Chapter 41 in which St. Justin Martyr clearly demonstrates the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Uh oh, that sounds remotely Catholic to me! Or how about Chapter 117 which states:

“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.”

Uh oh! Offering sacrifices through bread and a cup? WTF is all that about? Sounds distinctly Catholic to me!

St. Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho AFTER he wrote his First Apology (written in the mid 2^nd century), which quite frankly, no Protestant will ever mention! In his First Apology, Martyr writes in Chapter 66:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

I think Mr. Morrison should ask himself this question: If he is to take the word of this Early Church Father as proof of the authority of scripture, then why not take the word of the same Early Church Father as proof of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Because clearly, St. Justin Martyr believed in both.

@ 10:18-12:10 - Mr. Morrison goes on to demonstrate that several Early Church Fathers mention in some form or another, parts of the New Testament. An interesting thing of note is that Mr. Morrison never tells us which Fathers commented on what and whether or not they DIRECTLY QUOTE a New Testament work. You see, what Mr. Morrison is attempting to do is to, once again, is to demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers not only held the scriptures in high regard but as the only source of authority. This of course runs counter to history. You see the canonization of what books belong the bible occurred (at least) 60 years after the Council of Nicaea. So in essence, from the first book of the New Testament being written around 50 A.D. to the last book being written around 100 A.D., to the first council in Nicaea in 325 A.D., to the very first list of books by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. there were A LOT OF CHRISTIAN WRITINGS WHERE FLOATING AROUND, that is, a lot of different works were being quoted by a lot of Early Church Fathers.

The Early Catholic Church used the writtings of the Early Church Fathers as a road map when it complied the Bible in 382, it used the inspired writings of its priests as a guide to which works it percieved where indeed inspired by God and which ones where not. In other words, the Bible came from Sacred Tradition, by the written and spoken words of the decendants of the Apostles. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the books that the Early Catholic Church chose and declared to be inspired, would be quoted by the Early Church Fathers over and over again because it was these exact quotets that lead the Catholic Church of the late 4th century to put together 73 books and, with all of Her authority, proclaim them the infallible Word of God. Think about that, the Early Church Fathers already had heard the Gospel proclaimed without there ever having been any form of concise and standard form of Scripture; proof positive that the tradition of verbally transmitting the inspired Word of God actually happened (see 2 Thess 2:15). If anything, Mr. Morrison here is proving the Catholic stance on Sacred Tradition.

@ 12:10 – Mr. Morrison says that the Early Church Fathers did not venerate the dead nor did they believe in icons or images. Patently and completely false! Let’s see what an Early Church Father said. In chapter 18 of the Martyrdom of Polycarp which was written in 155 A.D.:

“Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.”

Venerating the relics of a Saint and celebrating what amounts to an annual feast day for that dead Saint? Mr. Morrison, do you do this in your church? The only reason I ask is because Catholics do venerate relics as well as celebrate feast days of Saints...just like the first Christians did.

Tertullian writing in 211 A.D., in the 3^rd Chapter of The Crown, said:

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors.”

Offerings for the dead? Mr. Morrison, do you make offerings for the dead at your church like the very first Christians did? Catholics still to this day do, why don’t you?

St. Cyprian writing in 250 A.D., in his Epistle to the Clergy and the People, said:

“Nor is that kind of title to glories in the case of Celerinus, our beloved, an unfamiliar and novel thing. He is advancing in the footsteps of his kindred; he rivals his parents and relations in equal honours of divine condescension. His grandmother, Celerina, was some time since crowned with martyrdom. Moreover, his paternal and maternal uncles, Laurentius and Egnatius, who themselves also were once warring in the camps of the world, but were true and spiritual soldiers of God, casting down the devil by the confession of Christ, merited palms and crowns from the Lord by their illustrious passion. We always offer sacrifices for them, as you remember, as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the martyrs in the annual commemoration.”

Offering sacrifices for the dead? Mr. Morrison, do you offer any type of sacrifice for the dead at your church like the very first Christians did? Catholics offer the perpetual sacrifice of the Mass for our departed brothers and sisters in Christ, I'll ask again, why don’t you?

St. John Chrysostom, writing in the late fourth century said:

“When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.”

Veneration? At an altar? WTF? Sounds distinctly Catholic if you ask me. To my Protestant friends, do you guys repose and venerate at your altar? Does your church even have an altar, if so, what sacrifice do you make, represent or re-present on it?

St. Jerome, a.k.a. the guy who translated the Bible to Latin (the Vulgate), from which every copy of the Bible is derived from, wrote a letter in 404 to a man named Riparius who was writing to Jerome because another man named Vigilantius was causing a lot of trouble for the Christians who were venerating the relics of the martyrs. So, did St. Jerome condemn Riparius for his iconoclastic belief? This is what St. Jerome wrote:

“You tell me that Vigilantius (whose very name "Wakeful" is a contradiction: he ought rather to be described as "Sleepy") has again opened his fetid lips and is pouring forth a torrent of filthy venom upon the relics of the holy martyrs; and that he calls us who cherish them ashmongers and idolaters who pay homage to dead men’s bones. Unhappy wretch!...Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord…I ask Vigilantius, "Are the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean? Was the body of Moses unclean, of which we are told (according to the correct Hebrew text, [Deut. xxxiv. 6]) that it was buried by the Lord Himself?

He concludes by saying,

“I will go farther still and ask a question which will make this theory recoil upon the head of its inventor and which will either kill or cure that frenzied brain of his, so that simple souls shall be no more subverted by his sacrilegious reasonings. Let him answer me this: Was the Lord’s body unclean when it was placed in the sepulchre? And did the angels clothed in white raiment merely watch over a corpse dead and defiled, that ages afterwards this sleepy fellow might indulge in dreams and vomit forth his filthy surfeit, so as, like the persecutor Julian, either to destroy the basilicas of the saints or to convert them into heathen temples?”

Or, how about St. Gregory of Nyssa in his 4th century Sermon on the Blessed Theodore the Martyr when he said:

“...drawing near to (the martyr's) tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing. If anyone takes dust from the martyr's resting place, it is a gift and a deserving treasure. Should a person have both the good fortune and permission to touch the relics, this experience is a highly valued prize and seems like a dream both to those who were cured and whose wish was fulfilled....one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek.”

Mr. Morrison also says that the excommunication and eventual sainthood of Christian martyrs where also not held in high regard by the Early Church Fathers, this simply isn’t true. He uses the example of St. Joan of Arc who was excommunicated and subsequently canonized. Anyone who’s remotely familiar with the story of St. Joan of Arc knows that the inquisitional court that undertook her case of heresy was controlled by the English government who also occupied Northern France at the time. This court naturally found this French Catholic warrior-patriot guilty and she was burned at the stake in 1439. After the French regained their occupied lands in 1449, investigations were held and it was rightly determined that she was innocent and, since she died protecting her Catholic faith, she died a martyr and eventually she was canonized. It should be noted that she WAS NOT excommunicated by a Pope, she was excommunicated by a local English sympathizing bishop.

It should also be noted that other Saints were also wrongfully excommunicated by hateful and vengeful men and later canonized, like St. Athanasius, St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

Lastly, Mr. Morrison says that none of the Church Fathers believed that the Church could bestow sainthood upon anyone. Once again, this statement is false. Let’s focus on what the Early Church Fathers said. It was St. Cyprian writing in the mid 200’s who stated the phrase, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” that is, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.” A very bold statement that NO Protestant will ever admit to but, what did the so-called “bible-only” Church Fathers (that Mr. Morrison would have us believe) think about this bold statement?

A good look trough the writings of Bishop Firmilean, Bishop Niceta, Lactantius, Origen, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Fulgentius, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Jerome, Saint Peter Canisius, Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Thomas Aquinas ALL believed in this doctrine of the Church. Why is this important? Simply put, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ, since salvation comes only through Christ, it is imperative that all Christians be part of the Body of the One True Church. The Early Church Fathers knew therefore that the Saints came ONLY from the Catholic Church, furthermore they lived in a time when there was ONLY ONE Christian Church and that Church was indeed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, same as it is today. Lastly, the Catholic Church doesn’t “make a Saint” she simply states what God has already done in heaven.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church #828 states (my emphasis added):

“By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly pro claiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history." Indeed, "holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal."

@ 13:55 – “Can an excommunicated heretic become a saint after death? This is a key thing to ask Catholics. Joan of Arc, she was burned to death as a heretic, she was tried by an official church council, she appealed to the Pope, the Pope did nothing and then -  50 years after she was killed by the Church as a heretic -  she became a saint. So if the Catholic Church was right in excommunicating people, did that mean that the excommunicated person is outside the Church and is going to Hell and 50 years later she goes to heaven?”  Yet another twisting of facts by Mr. Morrison. To begin with, as I stated before, Joan of Arc WAS wrongfully sentenced to death by pro-English clerics who, instead of opening their hearts to the truth, were more than likely subdued by political influence within the cloisters of the Church in England; after all, this was the medieval Catholic Church and to be a bishop was one of the great influential positions of the time. One of the most interesting medieval Church facts that I’ve come across is that NONE of the medieval Popes have ever been canonized. If in fact you ever needed proof that the Church is preserved by the Holy Spirit, then take note of how she was protected from the medieval scoundrels that sought worldly power instead of proclaiming Christ’s heavenly majesty.

Since we are speaking about the Church Fathers, let’s see what one of the brightest Catholic minds of the medieval age had to say about wrongful excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his famous Scriptum super Sententiis written in the early 1250's A.D. (200 years before Joan of Arc’s era) said that that is it better to die [wrongfully] excommunicated than to violate God's law and, in Book I, Distincition 44: question #2 he states that “Christians are bound to obey the authorities inasmuch as they are from God; and they are not bound to obey inasmuch as the authority is not from God.” In Summa Theologica, again written before Joan of Arc’s time, Aquinas’ 21^nd question, article 4 deals in particular with excommunication. It states:

“An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons. First, on the part of its author, as when anyone excommunicates through hatred or anger…Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication…”

During Joan of Arc’s trial, numerous mistakes were made, heck at the end they even had to revise the list of offenses she apparently committed because they couldn’t get it right! St. Hildegard in her work, Scito Vias Domini, penned around the same time as Aquinas’ Scriptum super Sententiis, also notes that the binding of an unjust excommunication, cannot stand. She echoes Aquinas in stating that in the case of a wrongful excommunication, it is the clergy responsible for the excommunication that will incur God's wrath, not the excommunicated. God is the ultimate judge, according to these prominent medieval theologians; the clergy were considered to be free from misguided judgement ONLY IF they were truly acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit unfortunately they were not and therein lies the real fallacy of Mr. Morrison’s argument; that he somehow believes that an ecclesiastical body is infallible and, as any good Catholic will tell you, no ecclesiastical body is infallible save the Pope when proclaiming ex cathedra.

Mr. Morrison also stated that Joan of Arc “appealed to the Pope,” pray tell then, where is said correspondence? The simple fact is that all of the correspondence from Joan of Arc were preserved in order to use it against her when she was imprisoned, if in fact she communicated via letter to the Pope, wouldn’t the English tribunal have used this non-response from the Pope himself as further proof that she was a heretic? Think about that, what more proof would the tribunal have to have then that of the Pope himself refusing to answer a heretic! Wouldn’t this undoubtedly prove that the Pope was on the tribunal’s side since he never wrote back to defend this heretic? Alas, there was no such proof used to wrongfully condemn Joan of Arc; she died a martyr and as such, is a Saint.

@ 14:57 – 16:00 “…on this particular doctrine, you don’t find it in the Early Church writings. Before 325 A.D….before that date, and what we are seeing here in the Early Church writings is nothing about this stuff...that just shows right there a rock solid example of how false this doctrine’s tradition is…it doesn’t jive with the Word of God…it was a fabrication that was created later.”  Let’s see what the Early Church thought about excommunication. Early ecclesiastical writer, Tertullian explains of the heretic Marcion’s excommunication in 144 A.D. by the bishops of Asia Minor, so bad where his heresies that St. Polycarp called Marcion “the firstborn of Satan.”  Think about that for a second: if St. Polycarp, an Early Church Father and disciple of the Apostle John, called Marcion by this moniker, did St. Polycarp think that Marcion should still be part of the Early Church’s priesthood? Of course not! He’s not of the Spirit thus he is an adversary, an anti-christ (2 Jn. 1:7). Why wouldn’t he therefore be excommunicated out of THE ONLY Christian Church of the time? To suggest that just because the Early Church Fathers don’t mention excommunication explicitly in their writings and somehow this means that they didn’t practice it is absolute cynicism on Mr. Wessels part! St. Irenaeus in his Book III of Against Heresies (written 180 A.D.), states:

“Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren.”

Historian Eusibius, writing in the late 290's, records in his Church History, Book 5 Chapter 28 paragraph 6, the following concerning Pope St. Victor I (189-199 A.D):

"And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresey?"

Clearly seen is the leader of the Catholic Church "cutting off from communion" a heretic as early as the late second century A.D.; I don't know about you but, getting "cut off from communion" sounds like excommunication to me.

In 341 A.D. – just 16 years after Nicea, at the Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis, the Church Fathers declared that:

“Whosoever, shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church…”

Notice the attitude of these Early Church Fathers, it’s almost a given that if someone, especially an ordained priest, falls into heresy it only natural that they be excommunicated out of the Church, that is, out of the Body of Christ!

Let’s see what, if anything, the Word of God says about separating people from the church, Matthew 18:17 Jesus says:

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

So you see, there is a basis for excommunication as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The issue here is that as Protestants, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Wessels are attempting to undo the fidelity of the One True Church and its authority from Christ Himself. This is a tactic used over and over again in order to strip Mother Church down to merely just “another church.”

Additionally, Mr. Morrison states that it is the Saints who give us, their grace, wrong. It is God who generously bestows it upon us.

THIS ENDS PART 1

The Cathedral of Jinotega

The Church pictured above is a picture of St. John´s Cathedral in the city of Jinotega nestled beautifully within a mountainous valley. As is Nicaraguan custom, the Church dwarfs most modern Catholic Churches in  size and magnitude. One neat feature that we saw was that the Adoration Chapel was just to the right of the Church:

With such a design on it´s front gate, it´s easily notable who occupies the other side

The main aisle and nave are simply stunning. Running the course from enterance to the altar with columns rounded off by archs, in essence, creating a huge open expanse for the worship of the Lord:

An interesting thing about the way this church was built is that it resemples the classic basillica layout, that is, when the aisle meets the altar, there are two adjacent areas on either side of the altar. To the left we there was an area devoted to Our Lady of Guatalupe and to the right of the altar, there was the Most Blessed Sacrament for the faithful to pray and be with our Lord.

The faithful few spending time with our Lord.

A close up of the pulpit in front of the altar

The strangest thing that I noticed was a display of Christ in His passion underneath the altar. At first it was kind of weird but then I thought to my self, where else would the sacraficial Lamb of God be other than at the altar, right? And then I remembered Revelation 5:6 in which John sees a "lamb as though it were slain" and it is from the bottom of an alter that the martyrs cry out for vengence in Revelation 6:9-10. Pretty powerful stuff, its not hard to see how it is that we Catholics use ALL of our senses when we [truly] worship:

Seen here is a dipiction of Christ, presumable at His Scorging at the pillar during His Passion

Another thing of note is that all these older churches also have the old school confessionals at the sides of the church, I don´t know, but having an all white interior bathed by outside sunlight doesn´t allow for much privacy! Oh well, it´s not like He doesn´t already know you want reconciliation, right?

Our Lady Santa Ana parish in Chinandega, Nicaragua

This church was originally built in 1751 and then renovated into the church you see today in 1885 after a huge earthquake left the former edifice unsound. An interesting thing to note is that the huge doors in the front of the church and in the back, are the original wooden doors from 1751! Pretty neat if you ask me.

As with most older Catholic Churches in Nicaragua, the rule is simple: Go big, or go home. Note the depth of the main aisle, from bottom to top, I estimate it at about 3 stories in altitude. Another intersting feature is the presence of a pulpit, seen above at the right side of the picture.

Close up of the intricately ornate Sacturary.

In the above picture, we were fortunate enough to catch a procession with an icon of the Virgin Mary. As the procession passed us, they were all reciting the rosary and praying for an end to abortion:

Later on, before we left, we were able to snap a pic of evening Mass:

If you look real close, you can see the celebrant in the pulpit giving the homily.

How to celebrate your patron saint!

My wife and I are currently in the pueblo of Jinotepe in the state of Carazo in Nicargua. As it turns out, this little town has what´s called "El Tope," which literally means, "The Encounter." Jinotepe´s patron saint is St. Antony of Padua and every year another nearby town brings their patron saint - via procession -  into Jinotepe and the two saints meet, or "encounter" one another. Needless to say, this is much cause for celebration, so much so that the following day is officially a holiday! This year, Jinotepe was visited by the town of San Marco`s patron saint which is St. Mark, the Evangelist.

In keeping with their native tradition, the participants of "El Tope" dress in their folklore wear as they enter into the Church:

Meanwhile inside the church, the Mass is almost finishing. This Mass is the literal "tope" of the two saints but, it is afterwards, when they both come out of the church, that the "tope" of both saints is actuallized to the faithful:

The saints are then both lead out of the town and into another nearby town - via procession by the faithful -  to encounter a third patron saint of a third town! This year, that third town was the pueblo of Diriahamba whose patron saint is St. Sebestian.

The most amazing thing about this is the fact that the faithful walk miles with their saints, all the while singing hymms, chanting prayers to the Most Holy Trinity, reciting the rosary, praising Jesus and giving thanks to God almighty. I really enjoyed this experience since this is almost non-existant in the U.S.. I´ve never, in my 7 years as a Catholic, seen nor have been part of a procession of this magnitude. It´s really a sad fact but, after witnessing the lay faithful rekindle their Catholic faith in such a beautiful and colorful manner, I´m thinking about perhaps petitioning my parish to do the same; acts like these is what being a Catholic is all about, we shoulc exude and display our faith with pride, honor and reverence.

Lastly, the most particular part of "El Tope" is the fact that there is a HUGE party when the patron saint is returned to Jinotepe! You see, when towns celebrate their patron saints the preceeding Sunday is a special day where the saint is returned back to the town after their "topes." Don´t ever let anyone tell you that Catholics don´t know how to party!

The beautiful Cathedral of Matagalpa

As promised, I´m attempting to document local Catholic Churches as my wife and I wind our way through Nicaragua. Yesterday we went to Matagalpa (NW of the capital, Managua) and found the magestic and awe-inspiring Cathedral.

The most interesting thing about this building is the all white facade. I have to admit, seeing such a huge building in dazzling white was pretty cool. Another neat feature in the front of the Cathedral was a motif of a lamb atop of an altar, seen here:

As you can also note, the Cathedral was first installed in 1879, not too shabby. The interior is enormous as well! That´s me in the left hand corner genuflecting as we walked in.

One thing that I´ve noticed is that most of the Churches in Nicaragua have a pulpit located to the right of the altar. Here´s a better shot, couldn´t get too close since a funeral Mass was going on

Pic from the corner across the Cathedral!

Sorry for the mini hiatus!

I'm currently on vacation with my beautiful wife in her native country of Nicaragua. Since I'll be out and about, I'll be documenting my travels via all of the local Catholic Churches we encounter on our journey! So stay tuned for an interesting and introspective view at the beauty of our Catholic heritage.

How every Catholic knows they are part of the One True Faith

The following excerpt comes to us from St. Justin Martyr's seminal work, The First Apology. Written around 150 A.D., this is one of the very first (if not THE first) apologetic writings in defense of Christianity. Justin was attempting to demonstrate the rationality and philosophy of the Christian religion to the Roman Emperor at the time,  Antoninus Pius, since Christians were being actively persecuted within the Empire. In Chapter 67 of The First Apology, titled "The Weekly Worship of Christians," we read the following:

"...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

ANY, let me repeat that again, ANY person who calls themselves Catholic clearly saw what St. Justin Martyr was describing. In short, he was describing the Catholic Mass in 150 A.D. - over 1,860 years ago! Stop for a moment and comtemplate that. We, as Catholics, can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was such a thing as the Mass right from the beginning of Christianity. Also, there is clear and concise proof that the Catholic Church was around less than 2 generations after Christ; if that doesn't let credence to the Catholic Faith then I don't know what does.

Since I happen to know that this blog is visited by Protestants and in order to form a clearer understanding of Christianity and Catholic teaching, let's dissect Justin's statement and verify it to our modern day Mass.

"...And on the day called Sunday..."
To start off with, one question that no Bible-Only Protestant can ever answer is why do you go to church on Sundays? Sunday certainly isn't mentioned as the day of worship anywhere in the Bible but yet, most Protestants continue with THE CATHOLIC TRADITION of worshipping on Sunday. Interesting. As a side note, most Protestant denominations also celebrate Christmas on December 25th and Easter in accordance to established CATHOLIC TRADITION!

"...all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits..."
So, in other words, the early Christians gathered together on Sunday and start off their worship by reading Scripture. One thing that any rational person has to bear in mind is that at this time, there was no established canon of Scripture, it wouldn't be until about 400 A.D. that the early Catholic Church would do so. The simple fact that St. Justin Martyr stated that the first thing the faithful do is read from Scripture denotes that, just like the modern day Mass, the very first part of the 2nd century Sunday worship was the Liturgy of the Word.

"...when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things..."
Clearly seen hear is that there is a "reader" and a "president," the "reader" is what we call the lector at the Mass and the "president," or the presider, is none other than the priest. If anyone dare to challenge the notion that the presider is none other than the priest, endowed by the Holy Spirit to consecrate, then I would suggest reading St. Clement of Rome's first epistle to the Corinthians, written around the same time as the Book of Revelation, which clearly states that the priests are to be respected and in charge of the happenings at the church. Most importantly though we see that the priest gives a homily AFTER Scripture is read. Just like in the Mass today.

"Then we all rise together and pray..."
Wait a minute, you mean that they were actually sitting and rising back then too?

"...bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen."
What is mention here is the offering of the gifts, or the Offertory; this is when one or two (sometimes more) lay faithful present the celebrant (the priest) with the gifts of bread and wine which will become the Body and Blood. Notice how water is also brought to him, just as it is in the exact manner today when a Catholic priest mixes the wine with a little bit of water (symbolizing the hypostatic union of Jesus' divine and human nature) and then offers prayers and thanksgiving in the same way that Justin recorded it over 18 centuries ago. Below we see this action repeated, just as St. Justin described! At the :42 mark we see two of the lay faithful present the celebrant with the offering of gifts.



Also, St. Justin states that there is an Amen said after they assent. This is none other then The Great Amen which happens after the the two species have been consecrated and have become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Below are two examples of this, if you watch closely you'll notice that the congregation are all kneeling at their pews and then they stand AFTER the Great Amen.

"...and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

Describing the distribution of the Eucharist as well as sick/homebound visits done by Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion done to this very day. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum #113:

"A Priest or Deacon, or an extraordinary minister who takes the Most Holy Eucharist when an ordained minister is absent or impeded in order to administer it as Communion for a sick person, should go insofar as possible directly from the place where the Sacrament is reserved to the sick person’s home, leaving aside any profane business so that any danger of profanation may be avoided and the greatest reverence for the Body of Christ may be ensured. Furthermore the Rite for the administration of Communion to the sick, as prescribed in the Roman Ritual, is always to be used."

Also, note how the Liturgy of the Eucharist comes after the Liturgy of the Word, just like it does today!

"...But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead..."

And now you know why Catholics celebrate Mass on Sunday's, because of the Tradition of the Church.

As it was plainly visible to see, the Catholic Mass is the same now as it was then. Don't ever let any Protestant tell you otherwise; the simple fact that we can trace our heritage back almost 2 millenia validates the Church's stake in history, which in turn validates our claim of Apostolic Succession to St. Peter, which ultimately makes the Catholic Church the church that Christ spoke of when he told Peter in Matt. 16:18, "Upon this rock, I will build my Church." 

I challenge ANY non-Catholic Christian to go to a Sunday Mass and not only prove me wrong but, prove Justin Martyr wrong.

Refutation of a pro-choice "c"atholic

The screen shot above is from a question I posed to a pro-choice “c”atholic on another blog site. You can visit her blog here. In trying to promote a form of dialogue, I’ve invited her to this blog to view my rebuttal of her answer. Although she doesn’t really go into full detail, what she does mention raises several red flags in her understanding of the truth of the Catholic Faith. I sincerely hope that my rebuttal causes her to rethink some of her presumptions and forces her to look more intensely at Catholic teaching.

Where do you find scriptural, traditional or doctrinal works that defend both your pro-abortion stance and your assumption of being a catholic? Are there some scriptures that you can demonstrate that show that the Catholic Church is/was pro-choice?

Not so much of the Catholic Church but actual scripture from the BIBLE. 

Right off the bat, she is attempting to justify a personally held belief by simply using scripture as the only form of authority. While this is useful in understanding Christianity, what she fails to understand is that as a Catholic, there are two other forms of authority that we hold to be true; that being, the Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the Catholic Church as well as Apostolic Tradition. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Christian denomination that uses these 3 sources of authority and, it is precisely because we have 3 sources of authority that the Catholic Church is considered to be so traditional, so conservative or so “stuck in the mud.” Additionally, it is because of these authoritative sources that the Catholic Church can proclaim and teach what She teaches; we also have something that other Christian churches don’t, that is, we have the pedigree that demonstrates our direct link (via Apostolic Succession) to St. Peter and thus to Christ Himself.

Since none of these sources of authority can ever disagree – they are after all inspired by the Holy Spirit – the only way that this “c”atholic feminist can rationally substantiate and validate that being pro-abortion is acceptable for any Catholic, is by her also citing any of the Early Church Fathers who taught towards abortion as well as doctrinal evidence that the Catholic Church supports her claim in addition to using the Bible as well. Alas, she cannot do this, instead she will attempt to quote a passage of scripture and try to squeeze out her personal point of view. For more information on the Catholic Church and Her authority, click here.

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: “so that her child comes out”], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Ex. 21:22–24). 

Bible passages like works of art can look from different ways…

Let’s just stop here for a second. What she is saying here is that the Bible is open to ALL forms of interpretation, unfortunately for her, the Catholic Church – the Church she claims to be a member of – says something a little different. CCC #111 states, there are 3 criteria in order properly interpret Scripture: 1) you have to be attentive to the content, 2) read the Scripture in light of Church Tradition and 3) to be “Be attentive to the analogy of faith,” which basically means that there must be an agreement of spiritual truths that conform to God’s design and His purpose. Unfortunately, she misses the mark on all 3 criteria! #1 – she doesn’t read this passage within its proper context; it is plain to see that this passage is simply describing Mosaic Law and Justice, not the right to an abortion. I challenge ANYONE to read the whole of Chapter 21 of Exodus and demonstrate how abortion is justified! #2 – Where in the 2,000 year history is there ever any mention of the “right” to willfully chose to abort a child? Where in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers do they ever, even remotely, suggest that a woman has a right to chose whether or not she wants to be a mother? Show me whole and entire documentation please, not selective sections of writings! Lastly, #3 – How exactly is the God of Life, the God that sustains us and nurtures us, the same God who knew our name from our formation in the womb, how is it that this God who creates is somehow reconcilable with the deliberate action of ceasing the continuation of life?

This is diametrically opposed to who and what God is, it is so counter to the nature of God that this premise alone could negate the existence of the Holy Trinity as we know it! So, there you have it, you can either chose to look at SELECTIVE BIBLE PASSAGES as “a work of art” or, you can read it WITHIN ITS PROPER CONTEXT and in its entirety and fully understand what God expects of you.

…but I feel this is a sign that if you take a woman’s right to have children or not, you are dealt with harsh consequences.

No, this is stating that life must be protected, why else would there be a penalty if a woman has a miscarriage due to violence? This passage is dealing with the unintentional act of causing a miscarriage NOT the conscious and intentional destruction of life. Additionally, this is an application of the lex talionis or “"law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury, in this case, it is establishing justice for the unintentional act of creating a miscarriage.  

Now the Church change their laws several time over two thousands like allowing girls to become alter servers but forbidding women to bless the eucharist (That law is new considering the early Church was controlled by both men and women.)

While the Church does and can change Canon Law by its own authority, I seriously doubt that abortion will pop up anytime soon as acceptable actions that can be done by the laity. Pope John Paul II maintained in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) that the Bible forbids abortion in the same manner that it forbids murder but yet, YOU claim that the Bible permits a woman to chose; so who’s right, the Supreme Pontiff or you? The Catechism (#2270-2275) states clearly that human life is to be respected and protected from the moment of conception and that abortion is a moral evil, Pope Sixtus V, in the late 1500’s, set church teaching that an abortion can get you excommunicated. Hippolytus writing in 222 A.D. stated that women who have an abortion are “lawless,” St. Basil in 374 A.D. states that a woman who deliberately gets an abortion is a murderer, I could go on and on but, I won’t.

The simple fact of the matter is that I can give you mountains of examples to justify the Church’s position but all you have is one simple passage that you took a cursory reading of and, taking it wholly out of context, you try to validate your pro-abortion belief. As a Catholic, the burden of proof is on you, YOU need to show demonstrable evidence that there is room for abortion in the Catholic Church, if you can’t, then why are you even calling yourself a “c”atholic if you can’t conform to its already established doctrines? If YOU can disregard the Church’s teaching on human life, then why not disregard adultery? How about doing away with the Real Presence in the Eucharist? How about we nullify the reading of the Gospel at Mass? You see, once you start to pick and choose what YOU like and what YOU don’t like, you become a schismatic, indeed, if I were to take an educated guess, I’d say you were a pro-abortion Protestant. You also stated that the early church was controlled by both men and women...documentation please.

Another question is whether the Zygote (yes we all started as Zygotes.) is human are not. That is up for debate…

Actually, it’s not. The Catholic Church has followed the explicit instructions handed down to it via Sacred Tradition since the beginning. Look at the Didache, written in the early 1^st century, in Chapter 2:2 it reads:

“...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”

That very first statement for the defense of life is the starting point for one reason that the Church views that life begins at conception. Furthermore, the untold truth about this Catholic teaching is that its condemnation of abortion are philosophical and humanitarian, based on the right to life of innocent human beings.

…but Scripture has pointed that we are born with sin, obvisouly original sin. Surely, because of the death of Jesus, we are free from original sin…

This is where I will ask with all sincerity: Are you really a Catholic or a pro-abortion Protestant that is pretending to be Catholic in the hopes that many will believe your heretical lies? The reason why I pose this question to you is for the plain and simple fact that: WE ARE NOT FREE FROM ORIGINAL SIN BECAUSE OF JESUS’ DEATH, we are freed from original sin BECAUSE OF BAPTISM, which washes it away. CCC #1213  states:

“...Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission...”  

At #1263 it says:

“By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin…”

So, sorry, but you are mistaken about the nature of Original Sin and the Sacrament of Baptism.

...thus we don’t have to worry about unborn fetuses going to hell because they are with sin because Jesus already saved us.

Looks like you may have to rethink that notion now in light of the fact that Jesus does not “undo” Original Sin, this statement you made makes no sense. If in fact unborn fetuses are with sin but Jesus has already saved them, then how do you explain what happens in 2 Samuel 12:14 where God tells King David that his first born will die because of David’s adulterous and murderous ways? Was this first born child saved by Jesus even though Jesus still hadn’t been born, crucified and died for us yet? Wouldn’t this mean that David’s first born child went to hell? Wouldn’t this also mean that the very first heir of King David – the child who would’ve had as his (or her) birthright the throne of Israel - is, right now, burning in hell because of what his (or her) father did? How is this justified through God’s eyes? I would really like to know how you would answer this.

Moving on, let me ask you yet another question, you made the statement, “Jesus already saved us” does that mean that none of us are going to hell because we’re already saved? Does solely believing in Jesus save us? Or, is it our faith what saves us? If you do believe that Jesus has already saved you then my question to you is this: Are you dead? Because the only way to truly know if you are saved is if you’ve already received eternal life. Are you really sure YOU’RE saved? In Matthew 24:13 Jesus says that Christians must endure to the end for salvation and in Revelation 2:10 Jesus says to be faithful until death, why would Jesus say this if you are already saved? In Philippians 2:12 St. Paul says to “workout your salvation with fear and trembling,” why didn’t he just mention that he was already saved in the same manner that YOU are stating? In 2 Timothy 4:7  St. Paul says that he has fought the good fight and completed the race and HAS KEPT THE FAITH, if he was already saved and he was assured of his salvation, why did he even bother to mention that? After all that St. Paul went through even he didn’t have assurance! How can YOU be so sure that you are saved? If we are indeed saved, then isn’t Satan wasting his time? Why should we bother praying? Why worship? Why go to Church? Still don’t believe me? Then look at what Hebrews 10:26-27 says:

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

The grace to come to salvation is a free gift. We are to cooperate with that gift in order to attain salvation. Automatically meriting salvation by virtue of faith is a wholly alien concept within Catholicism.

Also, Catholics believe that our bodies are disposable but not our souls.

Clearly, you have never heard of or unaware of the Theology of the Body. You see, the Catholic Church has this crazy view that the human body came from God (crazy right?!?!) and, it is in His image (weird right?). Since it is a creation of God, are you completely certain that it is just simply disposable? Is your body disposable right now? Was Jesus’ body, as it lay in the tomb, disposable? Are all of God’s creations therefore also simply disposable like disposing of a chopped up post-aborted fetus in a trash can? If the body is in fact disposable, then it means nothing, I would suggest to you that the human body means way more than what you think it means. St. Ambrose of Milan contended that the body can be made perfect by chastity and consecration, in this perfect type of body God can will all things as well  

Our bodies are a vessel or vehicles for the souls. Hence Catholics are so conscious about bodies because we have to “return to” when Jesus will rise us from the dead but hasn’t he done that already the moment we die, we enter a new life and join Jesus in paradise already?

Once again, you are assuming that YOU are saved and that when we die Jesus rises us up and take us all to heaven. Well, what about purgatory? Or have YOU chosen not to acknowledge this Divinely revealed truth? The assumption that you are saved is not only unbiblical, it goes against what the Church has always taught. Let’s see what the Church Fathers had to say about salvation:

“It is certain that few are saved.” -Saint Augustine

“What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! -Saint John Chrysostom

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

“The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed.”-Saint John Mary Vianney

“The number of the elect is so small — so small — that, if were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world!”-Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

“How few the Elect are may be understood from the multitude being cast out.”-Saint Hilary of Poitiers

So then, the Catholic Church does not teach in automatic salvation based on faith alone, Catholic Tradition holds the same view (as just demonstrated) and, biblically speaking, automatic salvation doesn’t hold water (as demonstrated earlier). How exactly sure are you that YOU are automatically saved and destined for heaven?

Souls enter the body for a period of time and leave the body whenever.

No, not whenever but, when God decides so. As CCC #2258 states plainly (with my emphasis):

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

I, personally, believe when a baby is born, they receive their soul the moment they take their first breath.

So, in other words, YOUR belief trumps the truth of Divine Revelation? Pray tell, where exactly could we find this belief? Is it biblical? It wouldn’t happen to be from a simple cursory-out-of-context reading of Genesis 2:7 would it? It states:

…the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

Is this how you are attempting to support your notion that life begins when you draw your first breath? Well, let’s examine this passage within its original and contextual concepts; The Hebrew term used in Genesis 2:7 for breath is “ruach” which, coincidentally, is also the same word for “spirit.” So, what is being said here in the creation narrative is that God not only infuses man with mortal life but spiritual life as well – not from the moment of physical birth but even before that. Hence, even before a physical birth, God has already formed a new life of whom he already knows (Jer.1:5), who He has already “breathed life” into. Thus, to state that life only begins when a child physically breathes - from a biblical stand point is nonsensical and takes away from the Creator the very act of creating perfectly.

They are animated and are now born.

As I’ve demonstrated, children are alive before they are born. If indeed animation is a trait of life – and it is – then when do we see movement in life? Any biology book will tell you that as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, it begins to divide, that is, it has movement. So, by your own definition then, could we not state that life truly does begin at conception when the movement of cell division occurs?

But when we die, we have our last breath and release our soul in the air, leaving our bodies behind. Bodies of the dead are called “lifeless” because they took their last breath and their souls have abandon them. A soul is not bound to the body for eternity.

It is plainly obvious that you cannot defend your personally held position of being both pro-choice and Catholic for you fall into too many self-inflicted traps due to your illiteracy of the Catholic faith:

1) You cannot cite any specific Catholic teaching to support your argument for being pro-choice

2) You attempt to legitimize your argument – that a person can be pro-choice and Catholic – on the basis of proof reading 2 verses of Sacred Scripture taken completely out of context and twisted to conform to your liking without ever taking into consideration the proper way of interpreting Scripture.

3) You grossly and obscenely misunderstand simple Catholic truths (i.e. Original Sin, Salvation, Damnation, when life begins) to the point of total ignorance.

Do tell us why we should believe what you believe and do demonstrate to us why the Catholic Church is wrong ONLY AFTER you have a better grasp at what it is that you are trying to attack. As such, without you knowing theological principles behind the teachings of the Catholic Church, you not only have no room in the conversation but, you relegate yourself into idiotic banality.

I pray that you do your homework and really look at the issue and, more importantly, understand the issue from the Catholic Church’s perspective, that is, from the perspective of truth handed down to us from the authority of Christ’s One True Church and not from the ideology of feminism.