Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Hello, DHK-


Allow me to take some time to respond to your remarks. As I see it, your remarks represent a complex and flawed system of thinking. It will take me some time to address the many things you brought up. And I will only be able to very briefly address some of your many points. But I am happy to be corrected. And I am open to any reading you might suggest. Here goes:


Part I

You said: We come to know his son through the Word.


A response: Yes. This is true. I do not intend to suggest that we do not come to know Christ through Christ. Nor do I deny the fact that the Scriptures play an important role in our coming to know Christ. However, God is a Trinity, three divine Persons who share one divine nature. And there are many ways through which we come to know our God. Peter Kreeft, an adult convert to the Catholic faith, came up with a list of 12 ways to know God:

1. The final, complete, definitive way, of course, is Christ, God himself in human flesh.
   
   
2. His church is his body, so we know God also through the church.
   
   
3. The Scriptures are the church's book. This book, like Christ himself, is called "The Word of God."
   
   
4. Scripture also says we can know God in nature see Romans 1. This is an innate, spontaneous, natural knowledge. I think no one who lives by the sea, or by a little river, can be an atheist.
   
   
5. Art also reveals God. I know three ex-atheists who say, "There is the music of Bach, therefore there must be a God." This too is immediate.
   
   
6. Conscience is the voice of God. It speaks absolutely, with no ifs, ands, or buts. This too is immediate. [The last three ways of knowing God (4-6) are natural, while the first three are supernatural. The last three reveal three attributes of God, the three things the human spirit wants most: truth, beauty, and goodness. God has filled his creation with these three things. Here are six more ways in which we can and do know God.]
   
   
7. Reason, reflecting on nature, art, or conscience, can know God by good philosophical arguments.
   
   
8. Experience, life, your story, can also reveal God. You can see the hand of Providence there.
   
   
9. The collective experience of the race, embodied in history and tradition, expressed in literature, also reveals God. You can know God through others' stories, through great literature.
   
   
10. The saints reveal God. They are advertisements, mirrors, little Christs. They are perhaps the most effective of all means of convincing and converting people.
    
    
11. Our ordinary daily experience of doing God's will will reveal God. God becomes clearer to see when the eye of the heart is purified: "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God."
    
    
12. Prayer meets God—ordinary prayer. You learn more of God from a few minutes of prayerful repentance than through a lifetime in a library.
    

source


You said: The J.W.'s also read the Word, and yet Christ is only an angel to them.


A response: Yes. This is true. They are mistaken in their confused Christology.


You said: To the Mormon's he is simply "another god."


My response: Yes. The Mormons are another non-Christian group with a seriously mistaken Christology.


You said: The Son is defined for and speaks to us through His Word.


A response: Yes. This is true. And it is a truth that is completely compatible with the Christian faith as it has been believed always and everywhere. In other words, you’re repeating Catholic teaching here by saying that the Scriptures “define” Christ and that Christ speaks to His People through the Scriptures. And at the First Council of Nicaea the Church assembled and defined Christ in relationship to His membership in the Holy Trinity. Those present at the Council who made the case for Christ's divinity drew heavily from the Scriptures to substantiate their reasoning.


You said: And yet the RCC has now changed it stance recently on contraception urging mothers to use it, and all because of the Zika virus.


A response: The Church’s stance on contraception has not changed. You are quite mistaken. Further, for you to presume such a thing, you must not have a close and accurate understanding of how the Magisterium of Christ's Church operates. If you’d like to learn more about the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, I’d recommend reading this article for starters. I am not sure if it is what you’re suggesting, but to be clear, a Pope cannot change the Church’s moral teaching in a casual extemporaneous interview.


You said: I am sure such diseases existed then (in Christ's time), as well. This is an example of a change of doctrine in the RCC.


A response: Again, you’re quite mistaken. The Church’s teachings concerning contraception have not changed. If you’d like to discuss this particular matter further, I am happy to study it more deeply and analyze it together with you. It is, as a matter of fact, one area of moral teaching which initially caught my eye as a non-Catholic.


You said: It wasn't Luther.


A response: I am not sure exactly to what it is you’re referring here. The “It” in your statement is an ambiguous reference to me. Just prior to this statement I had made a comment about my perception of the Catholic Church prior to recognizing its identity. I said that I had perceived of it in a number of ways, among which was, according to my view at the time, the role it played in frustrating the efforts of a young Augustinian Monk by the name of Martin Luther. You see, though I was a Baptist at the time, I would have considered myself to by on Martin Luther's "side" at that point. The Church was then, a distant and tyrannical force which frustrated this champion of Christian history. For, from my non-Catholic perspective, though I wasn’t Lutheran, I once considered him to be a champion of the Bible and the true essence of the Christian faith (Justification by Faith Alone and Atonement through Penal Substitution). So your “It wasn’t Luther.” is, again, ambiguous to me.


You continued: The apocryphal books, put in the OT canon, were never accepted by the Jews. The Jewish canon was completed by 450 B.C. The oldest of those books is 250 B.C., and some of them were written either during or after the time of Christ. How is it possible that these are OT books, or should be put in a canon of Scripture that was closed in 450 B.C. Also the OT Canon, given to the Israelites, quoted by Jesus was written in Hebrew. Those are the books inspired of God. All the Apocryphal books were written in Greek. That would disqualify them immediately.


A response: Again, your assessment of this matter is quite mistaken. I’d recommend reading the following article. It will set your history straight. And, again, if you’d like to dig deeper into this matter and learn more together, I’d be happy to embark upon that journey with you and uncover the truths of the Bible and history together, discussing them here in the open as we go.


You said: The Magesterium is made up of fallible sinful men


A response: Yes, indeed, just as the Apostles whom Christ personally selected were fallible and sinful men. The Magisterium is comprised of fallible, sinful human beings, certainly. This fact did not disqualify the Apostles, however, from acting on Christ’s behalf. Neither does it disqualify the Bishops of the Catholic Church from rightly shepherding the Church according to the direction of the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised for just that purpose when He said: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28) Further, it was to sinful, fallible men that Christ said the following: “He who hears you, hears me” (Luke 10) In some of the most profound words of the New Testament found in John 20, Christ literally breathes on His Apostles and says “Receive the Holy Spirit. As the Father sent me, so I am sending you.” That passage also records the very authority to forgive and retain forgiveness of sin being conferred upon the Apostles. So your statement concerning the fallibility and sinfulness of men is truly a moot point. Indeed, Christ Himself quite clearly demonstrated that such a condition does not disqualify a man from acting on His behalf. Further discussion could be had concerning Christ’s giving of the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostles collectively and to Peter singularly. But, again, if you’d like to dive into that topic together, I’d be more than happy to learn side by side more about God’s Word and His plan for the salvation of souls.

 

Part II

You continued: ...who came up with a document, the Catechism, which contains doctrines of fallible sinful men, and a whole lot of error contrary to the Bible.


A response: I understand that these statements and assertions represent how you’ve made sense of the Bible and its place in Christian theology. Your system of belief, though it contains many divinely revealed truths of God, is in some ways (primarily associated with philosophy) supported neither by history nor the Scriptures it professes to uphold. It is itself a “tradition” of men which, in some cases, nullifies the Word of God. For example, if you open up your Bible to the “Table of Contents” you’ll find something which is itself, quite extraBiblical. That is to say, you’ll find there, a list of 27 New Testament Books. This list comes to you not through the texts of the Books themselves but according to the Catholic Church’s recognition and affirmation of the God-breathed nature of these texts. They don't derive their authority from the Church that recognized them for what they were, of course. But the Church played a necessary role in the recognition and canonization process. As a servant to the Scriptures, the Church has been their safeguard since the texts were penned in their original autographs. We are today beneficiaries of the faithful safekeeping of these texts. God indeed worked among fallible and sinful people to ensure that the Biblical texts would make it down through the ages accurately and safely. Again, this is another demonstration of the fact that Christ is pleased to use fallible and sinful humans to share His divine truths with you and me, His beloved Sons. Indeed, the pages themselves were written, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the agency of sinners, among whom St. Paul, for example, numbered himself chief.


You continued: In essence one throws away the Bible and replaces it with a man-made uninspired piece of work written by sinful men.


A response: On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the very society through which, as I said above, as a matter of history, the Scriptures have come to us today. When we hear the Gospels proclaimed as Catholics, we rise to our feet out of respect and thankfulness for the Word of God proclaimed among us. And the Catholic certainly doesn’t understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the same manner as it understands Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture is in a category unto itself. Sacred Scripture, through human agency, has the Holy Spirit of God as its Author. It is God-breathed. The Catechism is not. Indeed, it is understood by Catholics to be the work of men. And it expresses many subtle, philosophical, moral, ethical, historical, analytical, doctrinal matters in a manner consistent with God’s moral law. Further, there is not one single letter of the Catechism which contradicts the Bible. Indeed, there is not a single teaching of the Catholic Church which contradicts a single Biblical passage, rightly understood. There may be a host of its paragraphs which contradict your unique tradition’s interpretations of the Bible formed by the philosophical considerations of John Smyth and the Separatists of the 16th Century such as Robert Browne and Henry Barrow. But don’t mistake your interpretations of the Bible, themselves products of your unique cultural, philosophical, rational, and traditional background, for the Bible itself. For there in the New Testament, we’re warned thus: And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (2nd Peter) Indeed, we all approach the Scriptures with our blind spots and our cultural lenses firmly in place. We mustn’t overlook this fact. We must look to Christ's Church to present to us the bona fide doctrine of God.


You said: There is the Word of God which Christ said is so much more important than the traditions of men which he condemned.


A response: I absolutely agree with you here. There were, during Christ’s time, a number of traditions which had arisen among the Jews which nullified the Word of God. These were the traditions, which, as you say, he condemned. So, yes, the Sacred Scriptures are and were indeed so much more important than those traditions. However, there were other traditions among the Apostles which, far from being condemned, were upheld by the very men to whom Christ entrusted His divine Mission. For example, St. Paul, in 2nd Thessalonians, Chapter 2, says the following: “But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved,through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.” Here we have God-breathed New Testament Scripture affirming the validity not of those unGodly traditions which had arisen among the Pharisees, but of the oral traditions passed on throughout the New Testament Church by the Apostles. In other words, we have Scriptural verification of the presence of valid Apostolic Tradition, passed on by word of mouth. Also, elsewhere in the New Testament such as 2nd Timothy, Chapter 2 there are further references to “entrusting” what was “heard” to faithful and trustworthy men. And nowhere in the Scriptures is it suggested or even implied that the references to preaching and hearing the word of God (such as Romans 10:17) would one day be replaced or supplanted by the written word of what would become known as the “New Testament.” Indeed, the idea of the New Testament is foreign to the New Testament itself. This is why I referred to the extraBiblical Table of Contents above. For the Table of Contents of the New Testament represents, in some manner, one of the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church. Oftentimes, non-Catholic Christians who hold to a “Bible Alone” view, as I’m sure you’re aware, appeal to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 to justify their “Biblicism.” John Henry Newman, mentioned in a post above, and writing in the 19th Century, had this to say in response to them: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy… Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." Further, this passage presents truths with which a Catholic agrees. Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. That is, all Scripture does those things. In other words, this passage refers not to a collection of texts here (which was yet to be compiled). Rather, it refers to all Scripture. That means that a passage of the Psalms, for example, can and will be profitable for these things. Chapter 1 of Genesis can and will be profitable for such efforts, as well. Isaiah 53 & 54 will be profitable for these things, also. The passage, though, on a textual basis, doesn’t begin to present the notion that a given “canon” (which did not yet exist) would become something against which the oral Apostolic Tradition elsewhere affirmed in the Scriptures would be pitted.

 

Part III

You cited the following: Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.


A response: Again, you’re not arguing against a Catholic by raising this issue. Catholics thoroughly affirm and regard that passage with the greatest respect. You won’t find a Catholic arguing against Scripture. You’ll find a Catholic disagreeing with a person’s mistaken interpretation of Scripture. In other words, where your Baptist tradition is right you're still clinging to Catholic truths. And where your Baptist tradition parts ways with Catholic truths, it's your Baptist tradition, not the Catholic teaching which should be given up.


You continued: Let's examine these claims. First, Peter. I can show you from Scripture that Peter was never in Rome as the RCC claims.


A response: Even if you could prove such a thing, such a demonstration would be quite moot because you couldn’t prove a more fundamental belief upon which such a demonstration would itself rest. Your presumption here is that something must be found explicitly in Sacred Scripture in order for it to be recognized as a truth of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, though, that “truth” (which isn’t a truth at all) is itself, not a doctrine which derives from Scripture. Put simply, your Bible-test is itself unBiblical. And it is through the adoption of this mistaken first principle that many who see themselves as holding fast to the Bible, in failing to recognize the fundamentally philosophical nature of what they think is a “Biblical” view, come to find themselves at odds with not only the one, Catholic Church of the ancient Creeds which was established by Christ, but also with the many thousands of other sects, communities, and denominations which trace their roots back to the Church founded by Christ and from which their forebears parted. In other words, you’re approaching the Scriptures with a *philosophical* principle concerning Scripture, which itself is not derived from Scripture. So, again, even if you could demonstrate the claim concerning St. Peter’s absence from Scripture, a Christian would still be well within his Biblically-defined rights to continue to hold to the view that Peter was there in Rome. For the Bible isn’t to be looked at as one would approach an encyclopedic resource which provides an exhaustive account of the whereabouts of the Apostles throughout the post-Resurrection years. For a chain of argumentation is only as strong as its weakest link. And the link in your chain which fails you and thus invalidates your entire Baptist philosophical tradition is the one which is itself demonstrably not found in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say anything like “In order for a Christian doctrine to be affirmed, it must be explicitly found in the Bible.” That is certainly not what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. Therefore, your test for Biblical viability itself fails the test for Biblical viability. That is the point by which a person may come to recognize that Biblicism itself represents an unBiblical tradition and is guilty of committing the same error which Biblicists accuse others of committing, namely, that of holding to unBiblical views and relying upon unBiblical traditions. There is indeed a great irony at play here. But again, it’s not a bad heart that’s at the root of this problem, it’s bad philosophy. Philosophy is just a means to an end, though. So the love that a Biblicist has in her heart is of greater importance than the soundness of her philosophical system. At the same time, though, the flaws in that system, which do damage and injure the Christian community, should be addressed and exposed for what they are: Complex philosophical errors of often well-meaning medieval Christians.

 

Part IV

You continued: Tradition says he died there, but that is tradition, and given that, that would be the only time he went to Rome, dragged there as prisoner and then martyred. He was never there as a bishop or in any place of leadership in any church.


A response: You’re mistaking things you think for things you know. You're mistaking presumptions for certainties. All of these things could likely be traced back to that mistaken first principle from which you build your philosophical outlook. Again, this outlook represents a prime example of a “tradition of men” which, incidentally, as far as St. Peter’s role in the Church, nullifies the Word of God. Again, I would feel comfortable presuming that you truly mean well and desire to be faithful to the Scriptures. You, however, have to account for the problem I’ve described if you’re going to demonstrate that it is you, and not the Catholic, who’s following the teaching of Scripture. I’d recommend visiting this link.


You continued: Thus the very foundation of the RCC lies in question.


A response: The “foundation” of the Catholic Church is Christ. He is the Source and Summit of the Faith, in the words of the Catechism. He is the Church’s principle of unity. He is its Head and Groom. A point of history and geography, St. Peter’s time in Rome, is an important question, yes. It is certainly related to the origins and historical growth and development of the Catholic Church. But it shouldn’t be mistaken for the true foundation of the faith which is, and always will be, Christ the Lord.


You continued: Second, the RCC's supposed understanding of the "sacraments" is flawed. One doesn't even find the word in the Scriptures, just as they don't find the word "Eucharist" in the Scripture.


A response: It is a matter of opinion, which is itself based upon a mistaken philosophical tradition (and decidedly not Biblical axiom), by which you reach these many and mistaken conclusions. Thinking you’re speaking Biblically, you see anyone who disagrees with you as parting ways with Scripture. If you were to come to understand the essentially philosophical foundation of your view, then you might see your position for the philosophical-interpretive tradition that it is. Your situation is much like that of the Scientific Empiricist who, not recognizing the philosophical presumptions by which he appropriates his scientific knowledge, sees those who disagree with him as wrong-minded in their appeals to faith, reason, and anything other than hard scientific fact. In your case as well as his, the systems of belief which you two follow do not flow from the raw materials you believe them to (in your case the Scriptures and in his case raw scientific data). In your case it’s philosophical tradition + Scripture by which you reach your conclusions while in his case it is philosophical tradition + empiricism which blinds him. Both of you, then, are not accounting for the unique philosophical traditions according to which you operate, the things you're bringing to the table before you even access your Bible or he accesses his magnifying lens. Like one who forgets his glasses on account of their comfort, you’re unaware, so much so that you can hardly be convinced, that there’s something on your face which profoundly affects your vision.


You continued: The entire doctrine of transubstantiation is a heresy.


A response: Both the term transubstantiation and the term eucharist are not found in the Scriptures. Neither is the word Trinity. Another concept that’s not found in the Scriptures is the term “New Testament” as far as referencing a canonical compilation of 27 texts is concerned. Once again, it’s not the Bible that’s off, though, it’s the traditions of interpretation of the Bible which you’ve adopted that are mistaken. Transubstantiation is the doctrine that what was bread and what was wine (before consecration) become the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. The fact that a phrase or term is not found in the New Testament Scriptures speaks not to the apostolicity of the doctrine in question, its presence in the early church, or the time and nature of its institution. For though the term transubstantiation was not employed until roughly some time in the 14th Century, the reality it describes was there at the Last Supper. As St. Augustine once wrote, “For Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body he said, this is my body, for he carried that body in his hands.” And that’s the reality to which we now apply that term. But a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. And the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist as it was instituted at the Last Supper is a reality in and of itself regardless of the terms and labels different people may apply to it over the centuries.


You said: Third, Paul and John never taught Catholic theology. You can't prove that they did.


A response: My effort isn’t to prove anything. I can certainly let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Christ instituted the Eucharist. St. Paul taught it just as it had been handed on to him as did St. John. For it was St. John who recorded Christ’s words clearly for us and directly. For it’s the unequivocal teaching of Christ. The Lord said “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Therefore, Catholics believe Him, period. But don’t think it was Catholics who began to draw my attention to this doctrine and present to me the first demonstration of its validity. No, it was a Lutheran I deeply admired (and still admire in many ways) who did so. It was Martin Luther himself. This is what he had to say about the reliability of the Gospels concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: “Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” (Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391)

 

Part V

You continued: Fourth, Paul, and the others, established churches, not a "Church."


A response: Local Churches can and are unified to one another through the broader umbrella created by the shared communion of the episcopacy. This is what allowed St. Paul to travel about, write to various churches, etc. and have his apostolic authority recognized. It is in this way that Christ could send messages to the Churches in the Book of Revelation and at the same time the New Testament could speak of Christ’s Church as His Bride in singular terms. The particular local or regional church is a smaller component of the universal Church first mentioned as the Ecclesia Catholica by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the first decade of the 2nd Century (Letter to the Smyrnaeans). This is also the same universal (catholic) Church St. Augustine spoke of at length and on account of whose public unity he was able to so handily refute the numerous heresiarchs of his day.


You continued: The Greek word is ekklesia. It means assembly.


A response: To point out the Greek here is to make another moot point. First of all, I am aware of the word's meaning and usage. Also, an assembly or a congregation of individuals who are called out (not just a mere crowd) can enjoy a sacramental bond of unity brought about through Christ’s graces poured out in the New Covenant. Indeed, this is exactly what we see as the assembly of Apostles in Acts Chapter 15 deal decisively with an important matter of faith. Their teaching is in fact binding upon all believers as it is expressly defined as being in accord with the will of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is not simply just the goings-on of a local group of congregants whose interests have nothing to do with those of the universal or catholic Christian community.


You continued: There is no such thing as a universal invisible Church. There are only local churches.


A response: The Catholic Church is not strictly an invisible universal Church. It is a visible Church, hierarchical in nature and united in Government, Sacraments, and Doctrine. It is and always has been one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Although there are indeed local churches throughout the world, the claim that there are *only* local churches is entirely inconsistent with a number of clear New Testament passages as well as the necessarily visible, supernatural unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. For He prayed for the unity of believers so that the unbelieving world would see and know that Christ was sent by the Father. How does a local community do that? How could local, autonomous congregations, all of which are equally unaccountable to one another, provide the demonstration of unity for which Christ prayed? Does Westboro Baptist reflect the love of Christ spoken of in John 17:20-23? As far as the unique nature and constitution of Christ’s Church is concerned, I’d recommend reading from the Catechism here, specifically Paragraph 771.


You continued: There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly.


A response: If a family, which enjoys a principled unity on account of the natural familial bonds which exist between its members, remains a family even when they are not in geographic proximity to one another, how much more should the family of God, bound together by a new and everlasting Covenant in Christ’s Blood be understood as inimitably bound to one another in the Lord? In other words, even when the assembly of those who are called out by God part from one another and return to their homes, they retain their identities in Christ. As Romans 11:29 states the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. In saying things such as “There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly.” you’ve wavered from the Bible’s teachings and have waded far into the waters of philosophy.

 

Part VI

You continued: Paul went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 churches all independent of each other.


A response: Writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul said the following: “Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” If the Churches St. Paul established were independent of one another, by what principle did they recognize his unique authority as a father to them in the Gospel? Did the Apostles just leave one another and lose their filial bond in Christ? (By the way, didn't Jesus say "Call no man father"? Was St. Paul violating Christ's teaching? Well, we'll save that question for later). If so, why did they reassemble in Jerusalem (as recorded in Acts 15 for the Council) to decide upon pressing matters of morality? The Biblical data is entirely consistent with the existence of the supernatural, sacramental bonds which hold the Church together according to Christ’s designs to this very day.


You continued: The RCC is apostate in its teaching.


A response: I realize that this is your opinion. But the sharing of an opinion isn’t a demonstration of a truth. You haven't supported your assertion with Scripture, reasoning, history, or even an appeal to authority. Further, this claim is an extraBiblical claim. For nowhere in the Bible will I find this claim. It is a conclusion you’ve reached through consideration of things from within your particular interpretive tradition. As a Baptist, I used to agree with you here. But I realized that I was mistaken. And holding fast to the truths I’d received as a Baptist, I adjusted my perspective to account for the truths found in the Church, Christ’s chosen instrument of evangelization.


You said: It is misleading in its history.


A response: It is misleading to you because it doesn’t align with your received traditions. Once you take the glasses off of your face, you'll be more capable of recognizing how your interpratation of things has been colored according to your Baptist paradigm. Again, I’d recommend reading more about Church history before you speak of the Church’s history as misleading. Here’s a great place to start. A former Baptist takes you on a tour of history in the following video available here.


You said: It did not come into existence until the fourth century when a pagan emperor married Christendom to the state.


A response: Although this claim is frequently repeated, it has no basis in historical fact. It is an old canard which is often repeated as a person seeks to dismiss the Catholic Church quickly and easily. But it is not truthful. If you choose to engage with me further, after having addressed some of the many topics above, I’d be happy to research the early history of the Church with you so that we may both, together, learn more of Christianity in its earliest days.


You said: At that time paganism was introduced into Christendom and Catholicism was born.


A response: Again, this is an assertion which, though oft-repeated, has no basis in actual history.


You said: As you can see idols still abound in the RCC which the Catholics still bow down before, which is the essence of idolatry.


A response: Idolatry is not condoned or promoted within Christ’s Church. The Catechism speaks very clearly about this matter. Idolatry is a grave and terrible sin.


You closed with the following: It is a pagan church, not Christian. There are great similarities between Catholicism and Hinduism. Neither one belongs to Christianity.


A response: Again, you have made a number of claims here. They are, as I mentioned above, however, not Biblical claims. They are a unique mix of social, historical, cultural, and philosophical claims. They are woven together as an assortment of fallacies, half-truths, errors, points of confusion, and outright absurdities and presented as conclusions derived from rational analysis. I have taken some space here to respond to a number of the Biblically and philosophically problematic ideas you’ve presented and would be happy to continue to do so as long as you’re interested. In all of this, I strive to be caring and kind. If anything I’ve written comes across as insensitive or unkind, please forgive me and attribute it to the form of media to which we’re bound...


In Him,


Herbert VanderLugt

 

Hell, DHK-
As I'm new to this website and don't know the "etiquette" of a forum like this. I am under the impression that since you took a "shotgun" approach and made a host of claims, which I attempted to field, the "ball" is now in your court. At least, in a normal common sense situation, that idea would apply. If somebody makes a claim, it's pretty much expected that he'd be able to "back it up." Since you brought so many things up, though, I was a bit unsure as to how I should respond... hence my long response! I'd guess that you either directly or indirectly made about 20 or so claims. What was I to do? For my part, I'd be perfectly happy to see you take up just one strand of this conversation...
In Him,
Herbert VanderLugt

 

The better I look at Luther, the more he resembles papacy. He only was more verbose and bombastic.

Away with Luther as with the pope.

When Christ says something, it's not the pope or Luther. But when the pope or Luther sneezes, the world catch their flew.

Can you inform us, was not Luther sainted by the RCC? I believe he was. And if he hasn't yet, it's high time he gets sainted by his first love.

 

There you go. You have made your move. Only RCs and Evangelicals esteem child molesters the likes of Jesus' apostles. Disgusting.

 

Just a quick reply, GE, no Martin Luther was not 'sainted' by the Catholic Church. But you are right, he held much of what we believe to be true. God bless you!

 

Thank you so much for posting your testimony here. I, too, made the journey as a Baptist to the Catholic Church. I posted my testimony on this board before but will re-post it for your benefit in the next post.

 

'I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.
Liturgy is definitely part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!
I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

 

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.'

 

Gerhard,

You said: Away with Luther as with the pope. When Christ says something, it's not the pope or Luther. But when the pope or Luther sneezes, the world catch their flew.

A response: No Catholic claims that a Pope's statements should be understood as exactly the same as the words spoken by Christ and recorded in Scripture. When Christ speaks, we are hearing the very Words of God. A Pope, when speaking, speaks as a steward. A Pope speaks as a human entrusted, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit (not his personal greatness!), with the responsibility to shepherd God's flock, to be a Pastor of Pastors. The Pope is often referred to as the "Servant of the Servants of God." Petrine Stewardship and Apostolic Succession are profoundly Biblical doctrines, by the way. Also, you say the world caught the flu (illness) of Luther or a Pope. Upon what grounds do you determine which of Luther's doctrines were legitimate and which weren't? By what authority do you judge a man's profession of faith?

You also said: Can you inform us, was not Luther sainted by the RCC? I believe he was. And if he hasn't yet, it's high time he gets sainted by his first love.

A response: As Walter said, Martin Luther has not been canonized. Far from being canonized, he was excommunicated in 1521. By the end of his life, there were between 200 and 300 new denominations which had, following his lead, arisen. It is quite likely that if you wished to, you could trace your own philosophical tradition back to one of those denominations or another denomination which has come into existence since those days. Also, far from being his "first love," Luther was quite quick to betray the Church (He did so before the age of 40), disregard five of her seven Sacraments (each of which is profoundly Biblical and was instituted by Christ), violate his vows, and disregard his Bishop. If Luther loved the Catholic Church, he surely had a funny way of showing it.

 

Gerhard,

You said: There you go. You have made your move.

A response: I am confused. What do you mean by "There you go. You have made your move."? Is there something I said which you find questionable historically, Biblically, or otherwise?

You also said: Only RCs and Evangelicals esteem child molesters the likes of Jesus' apostles. Disgusting.

A response: Gerhard. To bear false witness is to violate the Law of God. You are here stating that "RCs" and "Evangelicals" esteem child molesters. I can assure you, this is not true. Further, child molestation is a grave sin. It is terrible, horrible, and disgusting. It violates the Christian teachings of the Catholic Church as well as all Churches, denominations, communions, congregations and groups. Unfortunately, your comments seem a bit ambiguous to me. It's hard to see what you're really getting at and why you hold to such views. As is the case with DHK above, though, I am here to chat and share, to learn from you both. I look forward to any responses that either of you are preparing. Finally, do you not consider yourself to be an Evangelist? Do you not wish to be known according to the Gospel which saves? Are we not all, then, "evangelicals"?

In Him,

Herbert

 

Thanks again, Walter. I am encouraged by your chiming in here!

Herbert

 

“~It was Martin Luther himself.~”

It in this matter is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by this fanatical man.

“~This is what he had to say about the reliability of the Gospels concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist~”


The Gospels contain no ~Eucharist~. They mention Jesus “having given thanks”—[εὐχαριστήσας]:

“while eating”—[ἐσθιόντων]; “their eating / meal”—[ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν];

“the dish”—[τρυβλίῳ];

“supper”—[δείπνου];

“at the table”—[ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης];

“bread”—[(τὸν) ἄρτον] “eating my bread”—[τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον];

“the cup”—[(τὸ) ποτήριον];

“the cup to supper’s procedure”—[τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι];

“the fruit of the vine”—[τοῦ γεν(ν)ήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου];

“the new testament in my blood”—[ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου]

“this passover”—[τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα];

The Gospels had nothing to say about “~the Eucharist~” or “~the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist~”. Both Luther and the RCC have much to say about the idolatry of “~the Eucharist~” and “~the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist~”. And Luther’s words apply to himself as to the RCC, “~“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?~”


Who ever read in the Scriptures, that “my body” is the same as the meal or the table or the cup or the bread or the covenant or the passover, all “~the sign of my body~”? Everybody! Everyone who has read Christ’s LIFE He had laid down in “this is my blood of the new testament which for many is shed for the remission of sins.”—[τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου (τὸ) τῆς (καινῆς) διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.]“Blood of the New Testament”—not the blood of Christ’s body, but of his “Life’s Soul, poured out”. “Because this is the blood” of “the Covenant” partaken in and “Passover” of Yahweh’s “Sacrifice of Himself” partaken in, in faith and through faith.

Only fanatical men (as if Jesus’ Life and Soul are not real)

~grant themselves such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture that they literally~ idolise unreal ‘blood’ and reject “~the Real Presence of Christ~” who without physical blood but in historical reality sacrificed Himself, gave his LIFE and poured out his SOUL.


This same Luther who here so venerates “~the Fathers of the Church~” (“Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”), is the Luther who said that “~the Fathers of the Church~” are a coal sack through which the milk of the Word of God the Scriptures, is filtered for purity! No better example could be presented than his own in this case.

 

No, I am no "~Evangelist~"; less an Evangelical. I see now-a-days the word 'Evangelical' is being used for Roman Catholics and that they take exception when the word is used for any others. Old Karl Barth was right when he virtually identified so called 'charismatics' with Roman Catholics. Today they go arm in arm under one umbrella and claim the same title of 'Evangelicals'.

 

Gerhard,

I think I understand what you're saying here. Still, though, you're not explaining a lot. You and DHK have both made many assertions. I don't think a single one has been substantiated Scripturally or otherwise. Also, just notice how unScriptural nearly everything you say is. Much of the content of your remarks is strictly philosophical and manifestly extraBiblical. In some cases, your remarks are even unBiblical or expressing ideas contrary to those taught by Christ. I'd encourage you to consider presenting the "reasoning" for your positions rather than mere bald assertions. Take, for example, these lines below. You don't explain. You just assert:

You wrote: The Gospels contain no ~Eucharist~. They mention Jesus “having given thanks”—[εὐχαριστήσας]:

“while eating”—[ἐσθιόντων]; “their eating / meal”—[ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν];

“the dish”—[τρυβλίῳ];

“supper”—[δείπνου];

“at the table”—[ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης];

“bread”—[(τὸν) ἄρτον] “eating my bread”—[τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον];

“the cup”—[(τὸ) ποτήριον];

“the cup to supper’s procedure”—[τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι];

“the fruit of the vine”—[τοῦ γεν(ν)ήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου];

“the new testament in my blood”—[ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου]

“this passover”—[τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα];

The Gospels had nothing to say about “~the Eucharist~” or “~the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist~”. Both Luther and the RCC have much to say about the idolatry of “~the Eucharist~” and “~the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist~”.

A response: The mere re-statement of Scripture is not itself an argument for either your position or mine. For I read those same words and affirm each and every one of them. I accept Christ at His word, by faith, when He says "My flesh is real food." And it was St. Paul who said "The cup of blessing which we bless: is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break: is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10). St. Paul also said that those who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11). Further, it was Christ who said that we must eat of His flesh and drink of His blood (John 6). When He said these words, there were those who grumbled among themselves... and ultimately left. But they left not because they misunderstood. They left Him precisely because they understood Him just as He intended and yet rejected the truth. Notice how the Lord didn't call them back, saying "You've misunderstood. I was speaking metaphorically." No, He lets them go precisely because they understood Him just as He intended. It is, then, Catholics, who are accepting the truths of Scripture here. For when Christ says "This is my body." Catholics say "Amen..." Unfortunately, there are many who, following traditions of men which nullify the Word of God, understand Christ to be saying any number of things which are not what He actually says here.

You continued, in response to Martin Luther's question: Who ever read in the Scriptures, that “my body” is the same as the meal or the table or the cup or the bread or the covenant or the passover, all “~the sign of my body~”? Everybody! Everyone who has read Christ’s LIFE He had laid down in “this is my blood of the new testament which for many is shed for the remission of sins.”

A response: It seems to me you're making Luther's point here. For here you speak of Christ's blood being shed for the remission of sins. That's what Luther was saying.

You continued: “Blood of the New Testament”—not the blood of Christ’s body, but of his “Life’s Soul, poured out”. “Because this is the blood” of “the Covenant” partaken in and “Passover” of Yahweh’s “Sacrifice of Himself” partaken in, in faith and through faith.

A response: Are you suggesting that Christ's physical suffering, which included the shedding of His blood, was not meritorious? Are you drawing a distinction between His "Life's Soul, poured out" and the actual physical blood He shed? It seems to me you're attempting to associate the "Covenant" with the outpouring of His "Life's Soul" in a manner that distinguishes the spiritual life from the physical life. Am I reading you correctly? Further, the Catholic Church teaches that we come to know God through faith. Amen indeed!

You continued: Only fanatical men (as if Jesus’ Life and Soul are not real)

A response: Neither Martin Luther nor the Catholic Church teaches that Christ's life and soul are "not real."

You continued responding to Martin Luther: ~grant themselves such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture that they literally~ idolise unreal ‘blood’ and reject “~the Real Presence of Christ~” who without physical blood but in historical reality sacrificed Himself, gave his LIFE and poured out his SOUL.

A response: Again, it seems as though you're drawing a distinction between Christ's actual blood and His "LIFE" and "SOUL." Well, since the divine and the human were unified in the person of Christ, such distinctions cannot be made. His "LIFE" consisted of His whole self, His entire being. One isn't justified Scripturally, philosophically, anthropologically, or on other grounds in forcing a distinction between His blood and His soul. For Christ was 100% God and 100% man. Again, just as is the case with DHK above, you're mistaking your flawed philosophical analysis for Scripture itself.

You continued: This same Luther who here so venerates “~the Fathers of the Church~”, is the Luther who said that “~the Fathers of the Church~” are a coal sack through which the milk of the Word of God the Scriptures, is filtered for purity! No better example could be presented than his own in this case.

A response: As I said above, your comments amount to assertions. I'd invite you to show me, for example, if I've read you correctly, how you've come to draw a distinction between the "LIFE" and "SOUL" of Christ and His actual blood that was shed. For, in my reading of Scripture, I've come to see His blood and His life as two components of one divine Person.

Finally, this conversation is getting quite unwieldy. I wonder if you and DHK or anybody else who's interested, would mind trying to bring some focus to things. I am happy to take a single thred of this gnarly cloth and explore it with you. I'd even be happy to see this conversation lead back to a consideration of the very basic and limited sense in which the Catholic Church conceives of Muslims and other non-Christian monotheists and their relation to God.

In Him,

Herbert

 

DHK,

As I said above, I am not experienced in forums such as this one. It seems, though, that common courtesy and charity would be upheld here. So I am wondering: Are you planning on following up with me? After all, this is a forum. And you have made many philosophical assertions. How about this. In an effort to bring some focus to this conversation, I am going to ask you to speak to one particular thing you said. Speaking of the Catholic Church, as the quote above indicates, you said that there are great similarities between Catholicism and Hinduism. I would ask you to please name one.

As I said above, I am happy to learn from anyone and adjust my understanding of Christianity where necessary.

In Him,

Herb VanderLugt