Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

Posts Tagged ‘Scripture’

Catholic Baptism in Scripture

Posted by Tony Listi on August 13, 2010

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Jn 3:5

“Baptism which saves you now” 1 Peter 3:21

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” Mark 16:16

“Then Peter declared, ‘Can any one forbid water for baptizing these peoplewho have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”Acts 10:47-48

“And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness….” Ezk 36:25

“Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins….” Acts 2:38

“Rise up and be baptized and wash away your sins….” Acts 22:16

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life….” Eph 5:25-26

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them” Lk 18:15

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me…. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” Mt 18:5, 14

“And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.'” Mk 10:13-14

Whole households and families are baptized: Acts 16:15, Acts 16:30-33, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16

Scripture is quite clear that baptism replaced circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). And circumcision was given to male children eight days after birth, i.e. before the age of speech and reason.

The faith of some can effect grace for others: Matthew 8:5-13, Matthew 15:21-28, Luke 5:18-20, Luke 7:7, 1 Cor. 7:14

“Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them….” Mt 28:19

Do Protestants base ALL their doctrines on that stupid thief on the cross? Even supposing “paradise” really means heaven, is the extraordinary to be the standard for the ordinary? But there is very good reason to believe that “paradise” doesn’t necessarily mean heaven at all.

For more comprehensive citations and explanations of Scripture about baptism, see here and here.

Posted in Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

A Catholic Reading of the Book of Matthew

Posted by Tony Listi on June 10, 2010

Often in theological debates, Christians start throwing Scripture verses around from all parts of the Bible. While all Scripture is the Word of God and thus must be consistent in such a way that a coherent, non-contradictory message is present, I think this haphazard cafeteria/smorgasbord style of using Scripture can be very unhelpful, even dangerous at times.

For we Christians cannot forget or deny that human beings, with their own human stylistic traits, emphases, and paradigms, did indeed write the Bible. Thus it seems certain that Christians can more fully understand the written Word by digesting it book by book, carefully examining and taking into account the unique context, tradition, and perspective contained within and historically surrounding each book. This method also seems to me an eminently, though perhaps not distinctly, Catholic approach to Scripture and its interpretation.

Thus I’d like to present how a traditional, conservative Catholic reads and interprets Scripture on a book by book basis. In this way, a Protestant may come to know what exactly a Catholic sees, thinks, and feels when he reads the Bible. Perhaps in this way and on this basis of what is our common ground, our common tradition, namely certain books of Scripture, the Body may be made one and whole again as Jesus prayed it would be and intended it to be…. Plus I’m tired of Protestants telling me I’ve never read the Bible (when I have) and that they are the “champions” of Scripture (when they aren’t).

The Book of Matthew

I can’t help but think that, of the four gospels, the Gospel according to Matthew is the least favorite version of Protestants. In fact, it may be the book of the Bible that Protestants ignore the most. I think they’d rather read St. Paul’s emphasis on faith rather than Our Lord’s emphasis on obedience to God and His Church.

Why? Because it is probably the most Jewish and Catholic of the gospels. More specifically:

  1. It is the gospel in which Peter is given the keys of the kingdom and named the Rock of the Church, a title of power and Scriptural significance, facts that Protestants fail to adequately account for in their own doctrine and practice. This gospel also features Peter prominently, evidencing his primacy. (4:18; 7:24-27; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:12, 16-19, 22-23; 17:1, 4, 24-27; 19:27; 23:1-3, 13; 26:31-37, 40-41, 56-58, 69-75) Click here for 50 Scriptural citations throughout the Bible that evidence Peter’s pre-eminence.
  2. It is the gospel that perhaps most supports the notion of the Church as necessarily a unified, visible, hierarchical, authoritative, indefectible, and even sacramental institution. (4:5-7; 5:17-18; 7:28-29; 9:6-8; 10:1-5, 20, 40; 11:1; 13:11, 16-17, 36, 52; 14:22; 15:3-9; 16:12; 17:1; 18:2-4, 7, 15-18; 19:28; 20:17, 25-28; 21:23-24; 23:1-3; 26:14, 20, 26-28; 26:36-37, 47; 28:16, 19-20)
  3. It contradicts sola Scriptura by invoking Judaic prophecies and doctrines that can’t be found in the Old Testament. (2:23; 7:12; 23:1-3)
  4. Over and over again, the need for perseverance in obedience and good works (in and through faith) are emphasized as necessary for salvation and that salvation is not certainly assured through mental assent. There are different levels of faith. The Church is composed of both the saved and the damned. (3:8-10; 4:17; 5:16-44; 6:1-18, 30; 7:12-27, 30-33; 8:5-13, 26; 9:20-22, 27-29; 10:22, 42; 11:19; 12:33-37, 50; 13:3-8, 19-23, 20-30, 41-42, 47-50; 14:31; 15:23-28; 16:27; 17:19-20; 18:8-9, 34-35; 19:16-17; 21:19-21, 41-43; 22:10-14; 23:23; 24:10-13, 24, 44-51; 25:1-46; 26:31-35)
  5. It affirms the Catholic sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation/Confession. (9:6-8)
  6. Jesus is presented as a new Moses, a new lawgiver, not an abolitionist of the law or the founder of a lawless religion. He fulfills the law. He makes certain laws of the Decalogue more strict. (5:17-44; 7:12; 19:3-9; 23:23)
  7. The Jesus of Matthew is also more harsh and demanding in character than the Jesus portrayed in other gospels. He is the Judge on the Last Day. (7:21-23; 12:36-37; 13:41-42; 16:27; 25:1-46)
  8. The Catholic view of sexuality, marriage, divorce, and celibacy is demonstrated in this gospel. (1:18-19; 4:22; 5:31-32; 19:3-12, 27; 22:29-30)

Moreover, this gospel was the most highly esteemed in the early church. This is indicated by:

  1. The early view that it was written first
  2. Its placement in the Bible as the first gospel before the other three
  3. The fact that it is quoted more frequently than the other three in the noncanonical literature of early Christianity

Additionally, scholars believe that the material for Matthew’s gospel was drawn from both written and oral traditions, including Mark’s gospel, Q, and M (a collection of other distinct sources known only to the author).

I’m not going to comment on every single verse but rather on the ones relevant to the Protestant-Catholic divide or general conservative Christian doctrine. Emphases are mine.

1:18-19 “When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.'” This verse brings to mind the issues of pre-marital sex and cohabitation. The former is clearly condemned. The second is implicitly condemned; a man takes a woman into his home only when she is his wife.

2:16 “When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.” This brings to mind the issue of abortion/infanticide. The USA is not the first nation to be the enemy of very young, innocent human life.

2:23 “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'” This prophecy cannot be found in the Old Testament. It is an oral tradition, an oral prophecy. With respect to the Old Testament, it is an unbiblical tradition. St. Matthew here demonstrates that he doesn’t believe in sola Scriptura (which in itself is nonsensical seeing as the Bible didn’t exist at the time this gospel was written).

3:8-10 “Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance…. Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire…. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” What does this say about the Protestant doctrine of sola fide? Seems to me that John the Baptist says good deeds, “good fruit,” are necessary for repentance and thus salvation. They are not merely evidence of salvation but required evidence of salvation, insofar as one is able to (spare me the thief on the cross nonsense). True repentance requires a change of conduct/behavior. And what else could the “fire” here mean but hell? Well, the Catholic may propose Purgatory as an alternative meaning, but of course, the Protestant rejects that belief too. Do Protestants live their lives as if “the ax” is at their “root”? I don’t think so.

4:4 “He [Jesus] said in reply, ‘It is written: “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.”‘” Jesus is the living Word come forth from God. The Eucharist by which Catholics live spiritually is not “bread alone” but the Word, Jesus himself. Scripture is not the only Word of God; it is the written Word.

4:5-7 “Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: “He will command his angels concerning you” and “with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.” Jesus answered him, ‘Again it is written, “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”‘” The devil quotes Scripture. Jesus quotes Scripture back. We can all quote Scripture. It is the right interpretation, the authoritative one, that matters! Also, Jesus is ever obedient to the Father. So should we be to enter the kingdom. And we must continually turn back to him when we stumble and fall from grace.

4:17 “From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'” Repentance is necessary before one can receive Christ’s forgiveness. Repentance is a complete change of heart and conduct, not mere mental assent. Moreover, because we struggle with sin our entire earthly lives, repentance never ends. One does not merely repent once and for all. One cannot repent of sins one has not even committed yet. It is through continual repentance that we demonstrate a living and saving faith and that we are able to receive forgiveness for each sin that ruptures our faith, our relationship with God.

4:18 “As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen.” Peter is the first disciple to be mentioned in the gospel and the first to be called. His Christ-given name of “Rock” is cited before the gospel narrative tells of it.

4:22 “…and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.” The disciples left everything, including family, to follow Jesus. This is indirect support for the vows of povery and celibacy that Catholic clergy take upon themselves.

5:16 “Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.” Jesus says good deeds that affect others are a “must.”

5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law….” Some prescriptions of the Mosaic law will “pass away” with the new age that Jesus’ death and resurrection will usher in. But some will stay in force. Who determines which will pass away and which will stay? Jesus (as the following verses show) and his chosen apostles who have authority to “bind and loose.” But we’ll get to that….

5:20 “I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Considering the way the scribes and Pharisees are condemned in this gospel and others, I can’t help but wonder if Jesus is setting the bar kind of low, haha. Just kidding, but it really is a somewhat puzzling verse. Regardless though, “righteousness” for Matthew is not merely a matter of faith but also one of deeds. In fact, Jesus then goes on to make the law for Christians even stricter and harder to obey:

5:22, 27-28, 33-34, 38-44 “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna…. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart…. Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all…. You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you….” Here Jesus deepens and extends certain precepts of the Mosaic law. Jesus doesn’t do this so that we can ignore him and “sin boldly.”

5:29-30 “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.” Just as good deeds are necessary to enter the kingdom, sin leads to damnation. Sin is a serious issue for the disciple of Christ: no sacrifice is too large to avoid sin and thus avoid hell. And remember, Jesus says all this to not just the crowds but also his followers (5:1) whom many Protestants consider to be already saved.

5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Again, Jesus deepens the law. The Mosaic law recognized divorce as legitimate, but He asserts an absolute prohibition of divorce. Infidelity is no excuse for divorce. The “unlawful” marriage referred to is incest of various kinds, which did happen among Gentiles of the time.

6:1-4, 6, 18 “(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,  so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you…. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you…. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.” God repays/rewards us according to our deeds. It is a very interesting economic and even capitalist analogy. Of course, no number of good deeds can take away/atone for even the smallest sin, the recompense for which is death and the remedy for which is Christ’s death. We cannot buy our way to heaven with good deeds, and yet Scripture is clear that they are necessary and taken into account by God. How mysterious but true…. It is not enough to avoid sin (which no one does perfectly anyway); we must do good as we are able to.

6:9-13 “This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name….” The prayer goes on. Jesus gives us the very words we should use when praying. The traditional Catholic prayer the “Our Father” comes right out of this Scripture passage. Why is it then that I hardly ever hear Protestants use these words of our Lord when they pray? Indeed, in my experience, they don’t even use a couple of key elements from the prayer: asking for forgiveness and asking for deliverance from evil (In their minds, many Protestants have already been forgiven and delivered, I guess.) I can understand wanting to use words that come from the heart, and I’m not saying new or spontaneous prayers should never be used. But the words of a traditional prayer can come from the heart, and shouldn’t there be at least some sort of balance between using one’s own words and those our Lord taught us? There is something disturbing in the notion that one would or should never use the exact words, more or less, that Jesus told us to use.

6:30, 33 “If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?… But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.”” Little faith? What can such a phrase mean to the Protestant? Apparently, there are different degrees of faithfulness to God because one can obey Him in different degrees. Also, these verses must make no sense to the Protestant: “I have faith already, so why do I need to seek the kingdom and God’s righteousness? The kingdom is already here because of my faith, and I don’t have to seek righteousness because Jesus has imputed all righteousness to me already in his death.” Protestantism thus contradicts Scripture.

7:1-6 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.” This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with verses 5 and 6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.

7:12 “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.” Another Jewish law that is still in force.
Also, the Golden Rule cannot be found in the Old Testament. Thus it too is an unbiblical tradition with respect to the Old Testament. Matthew here demonstrates that he doesn not believe in sola Scriptura.

7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” If only a few will enter the kingdom, does it make sense that mere mental assent to the idea that Jesus is Lord and Savior rather than an all-encompassing life that sincerely strives to live out that idea is the source of salvation?

7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” How are we to distinguish between true and false teachers of the faith? By the consequences or fruits of their teachings. What have been the consequences of Protestantism’s doctrine of Sola Interpretatio Scripturae Privata Mea (“My Personal Interpretation of Scripture Alone,” aka sola Scriptura)?  Schism after schism after schism and an ever-increasing dilution and corruption of the Christian faith by individual egos that reject the original apostolic teaching and authority. Moreover, the doctrine has led to a de facto theological relativism that has necessarily given birth to moral relativism and political atrocities in the modern time. What have been the consequences of Protestantism’s sola fide? Some “Christians” who think they can “sin boldly” (Luther’s phrase) because they know with “certainty” that they are “already saved.” And again, Jesus says that those disciples of his who do not “bear good fruit” will be cast into the “fire.”

7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'” Again, “evildoers” will not enter the kingdom of heaven, even though they call upon and acknowledge Jesus as “Lord, Lord” with their mouths. Supposing these verses and Rom 10:9 do contradict each other (they don’t), who are you going to believe: Jesus or Paul?
God knows beforehand who will run the race to the end and persevere. So of course, God “never knew” those whom He knew would choose to reject Him. From the God’s eye-view, of course no one “falls from grace” because God is timeless and eternal. From the God’s eye-view, each of us are either the saved or the damned because there is no time sequence, because God knows already what the state of our soul is at death. But from the human perspective, we fall from grace mortally, repent, and receive grace again and then fall from grace again, over and over again (unless we develop a strong saintly spiritual life).

7:24-27 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Jesus uses an analogy to illustrate his point. Again, those who do not put Jesus’ words into practice will be swept away and perish. Actions count. Do Protestants not believe that actions speak louder than words? Moreover, what does this parable tell us about Peter, the Rock of the Church? The church founded upon Peter will not be swept away by the waves of evil, confusion, heresy, and uncertainty that flood this world.

7:28-29 “When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” Indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition with regard to correct teaching is that certain religious leaders have authority and some do not. Yet Protestantism nonsensically makes every believer the ultimate authority. The result is theological and moral chaos.

8:5, 8, 10, 13  “When he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him…. Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed…. Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith…. You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you.” I have pulled out these verses to make a point about the intimate and necessary relationship between a true, living faith and action/obedience/works. Yes, the centurion had faith, but he had a certain kind of faith. It was a faith so strong that he acted, that he approached and appealed to Jesus. Faith in the sense of mere mental belief did not save the servant from sickness but rather a faith combined with an actual deed.

8:26 “He said to them, ‘Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?’ Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm.” Again, this reiterates my previous point that there are different kinds of faith. There are those of “little faith” who do not act according to their faith, and it is not at all certain that they will be saved. For a faith without fruit is dead (James 2:20)

9:6-8 “‘But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins‘ –he then said to the paralytic, ‘Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.’ He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.” What are Protestants to make of this? This verse clearly states that God gave men the authority to forgive sins on earth. If you doubt my translation, it is the same in the KJV. This verse is Scriptural evidence, if not proof, for the validity of the Catholic sacrament of penance/reconciliation in which the priest has the authority to forgive sins in the name of and by the power of Jesus Christ.

9:13 “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'” I examine this verse because of its potential use by Protestants against the sacrifice of the Catholic mass. But Jesus is quoting Old Testament Scripture (Hos 6:6) in which the term “sacrifice” has a very specific meaning, namely the ritual blood sacrifice of animals on the altar.  Thus Jesus is telling the Pharisees that if mercy and love are greater than these animal sacrifices, how much more then are they greater than the laws of ritual purification (avoidance of sinners and Gentiles)? Much greater. The Catholic mass does NOT continue the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament. Rather it commemorates the Last Supper and actually makes present the one and only effective merciful “blood sacrifice” for Christians: the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus calls it a sacrifice (Mt 26:28). St. Paul calls the mass a sacrifice (1 Cor 10:16-20).

9:20, 22 “A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak…. Jesus turned around and saw her, and said, ‘Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you.'” Again, as with 8:5-13, my point is that this woman had a certain kind of faith, a faith that was matched by action, in this case coming up behind Jesus and touching his tassel.

9:27-29 “And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed (him), crying out, ‘Son of David, have pity on us!’ When he entered the house, the blind men approached him and Jesus said to them, ‘Do you believe that I can do this’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ they said to him. Then he touched their eyes and said, ‘Let it be done for you according to your faith.'” Again, as with 8:5-13 and 9:20-22, my point is that these blind men had a certain kind of faith, a faith that was matched by action, in this case their following Jesus, crying out to him, and approaching him.

10:1-2, 5 “Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter…. Jesus sent out these twelve….” Jesus did not give authority to all of his followers/disciples; he gave it only to twelve of them alone whom he chose and sent out (thus the name “apostle” which means “one who is sent”). The importance and authority of these twelve as opposed to Jesus’ other followers is highlighted by the fact that St. Matthew and other gospel writers actually list their names. Moreover, the primacy of Peter is noted in that he is mentioned first, as in all the other lists of the Twelve. What good is authority if one does not know who has it? Notice that the Twelve are to engage in the same activities as Jesus. When one combines the fact of the exclusivity of authority with that of apostolic succession attested to elsewhere in Scripture (choice of Matthias to replace Judas, Act 1:21-26; Timothy as Paul’s successor, 2 Tim 2:2), one can see the authority of the Catholic Church is derived from the apostles, on whom Paul says the Church is founded (Eph 2:20). It is important to note that while Luke (6:13) and probably Mark (4:10) explicitly distinguish between the Twelve and the rest of Jesus’ followers, Matthew seems to use the term “disciples” throughout to refer to the Twelve.

10:20 “For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” The apostles speak with the authority and truth of the Spirit, as do their successors whom they have chosen and their successors up until the present day in the Catholic Church. For with the laying on of hands, the apostles give this Spirit to another.

10:22 “You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.” Again, one is not saved instantly and forever through a vocal confession of faith. Rather, one must persevere in the faith and endure its trials until the end of one’s life to achieve salvation.

10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.” This is a wonderful reminder to all Christians out there who have a “live and let live” approach to their faith. That is the wrong approach. The Christian faith is and always has been a source of division, conflict, and confrontation. Peace comes through an acceptance of Jesus Christ, not of worldly and neo-pagan evils like abortion and homosexual behavior. Christians are called to confront the evils of this world but prudently without creating worse evils in the process. And sometimes things do reach a tragic point at which violence must be used. Otherwise, the Muslim Empire would have crushed and subjugated the whole of Christendom, extinguishing the one true faith.

10:40 “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” We are still in Chapter 10 and Jesus is still speaking to the Twelve. Again, as with 10:20, the Twelve are distinguished with a special dignity as God’s representatives on earth, as intermediaries between the people and God. Thus whoever receives the apostolic commands in obedience also receives Jesus and the Father in obedience.

10:42 “And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple–amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.” Another puzzle for Protestants because many think it is impossible for them to lose their reward, namely assured salvation. And yet this verse clearly implies that salvation can indeed be lost in some sense.

11:1 “When Jesus finished giving these commands to his twelve disciples, he went away from that place to teach and to preach in their towns.” Again, this verse eliminates all doubt about who exactly Jesus was talking to throughout Ch. 10.

11:19 “But wisdom is vindicated by her works.” Protestants have an instinctual, theological distaste for any mention of “works.” And thus I quote this verse in which works are presented very positively. Let’s not forget that Jesus (divine, personified Wisdom) did indeed perform good works and that they were an integral part of his mission because they vindicated him from false accusations.

12:29 “How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his property, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.” For all you leftist “Christians” out there: Jesus recognizes the validity of private property and that theft is evil. Indeed the left uses the power of government and the abuse of the law to “tie up” the American people before plundering them of their property.

12:30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Again, like 10:34, let this dispel any delusions that Jesus just wants to get along with everybody and that we should do the same. Jesus draws a line in the sand. Christianity is absolutist. Interestingly but not surprisingly, this is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s speech before Congress after 9/11 warning the world, “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” No, I’m not comparing Bush to Jesus, but this may be where Bush’s line came from.

12:33, 35 “Either declare the tree good and its fruit is good, or declare the tree rotten and its fruit is rotten, for a tree is known by its fruit…. A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil” Again, an emphasis on good works brought forth, the fruit of real faith. See my comments on 7:15-20.

12:36-37 “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Youch, sounds harsh. But the actions, including what we say, of both the saved and damned will be judged by Christ. We are called to be perfect and holy, as God is, even in our speech.

12:39 “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” This verse calls to mind all the atheists, agnostics, and “rationalists” of all sorts who demand a sign from God before they will believe. Yet they will not examine and test the signs that have already been given (i.e. the historical documents of Scripture and the testimony therein and of other historical sources, the empirical consequences of the authentic Christian faith). No, it is not that God does not give signs, but that evil people ignore and dismiss the signs already given because they prefer their evil to the will of God. They have no humility and no reverence for anything but their own egos and thus they are unable to understand.

12:50 “For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Again, one must do the will of the Father to join the family of the saved in heaven.

13:3-8 (Parable of the Sower) See my comments below on the verses in which Jesus explains the parable. This parable is a refutation of sola fide.

13:11 “Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.” Jesus is speaking to the twelve disciples. And again, Jesus treats them differently from everyone else. He is preparing them for their unique mission and authority with regard to the Church.

13:12 “To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” Again, for all you “Christians” who hold Marxist views: this saying of Jesus is contrary to the Marxist dictum of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” True, Jesus is not talking specifically about material possessions here, but he is affirming and approving of a fact that applies to both the material and spiritual world: the fact of inequality and hierarchy. Just as the industrious/productive are not equal to the lazy/unproductive, the saints are not equal to the damned. Those who know and practice how to create wealth will get wealthier; those who know and practice holiness will become holier. Likewise, the individual Christian does not have equal religious authority as that of the bishop and pope.

13:16-17 “But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” Again, the twelve disciples are privileged, not of their own merit but through God’s gift of grace.

13:19-23 “The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart. The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy. But he has no root and lasts only for a time. When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the one who hears the word, but then worldly anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word and it bears no fruit. But the seed sown on rich soil is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.” Here Jesus explains the parable. The point is that it is not enough to hear the gospel and mentally accept it in an abstract way. That is not true faith, and yet that is what many Protestants call “faith.” In fact, the Christian who does not understand the faith can have his “faith” stolen away by the devil. The Christian who does not have a deep faith can lose it and “fall away” when suffering inevitably comes. The Christian who does not have a faith strong enough to resist worldly idols will have a sterile/dead “faith” that “bears no fruit” in good works (cf. Jam 2:26). In each of the three cases, the so-called “Christian” does not really have faith and thus does not really have salvation. What kind of faith do you have?

13:29-30 “He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘” These verses illustrate two lessons. First, God exercises the virtue of prudence in allowing evil “weeds” to exist. He does it for the benefit of the elect. Thus we too should exercise prudence in all our activities in our attempts to promote charity and oppose evil. Also, for those of you who think everyone is going to heaven, this passage refutes that notion. Weeds don’t go to heaven. Moreover, the apostles are warned not to anticipate the final judgment by the definitive exclusion of sinners from the kingdom. There are to be patient, preach repentance, and leave judgment to God.

13:36 “Then, dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples approached him and said, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.'” Jesus speaks to the crowds in parables but only explains the parables to the Twelve. Again, the Twelve are set apart for a special mission and unique authority.

13:41-42 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” Again, not everyone is making it to heaven. Evildoers do not have salvation, regardless of their claims to “faith.”

13:47-50 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind…. What is bad they throw away. Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace….” The Church has people “of every kind.” The Church IS catholic, universal, a church of all races. There are also sinners who are in some sense members of the Church in that they claim membership and may go through the motions. If they do not truly repent and have a change of heart, they will not attain salvation despite their superficial membership in the Church. And again, the wicked will not see salvation, regardless of their claims to “faith” and membership in the Church.

13:52 “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.” Remember, Jesus dismissed the crowds and is only talking to the twelve disciples here. The Twelve were uniquely “instructed in the kingdom” by Jesus and thus have authority over the Church just as the husband, “the head of the household,” does over the family. Moreover, the apostles are indeed given authority to bring forth “new” teachings as warranted by the circumstances of the Christian family (e.g. prohibiting embryonic stem cell research and cloning), teachings that are faithful to Christ’s original teaching.

14:19-20 “Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the fragments left over.” Catholics see the feeding(s) of the large crowds as an anticipation and foreshadowing of the Last Supper and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The word “fragments” (Greek klasmata) is used, in the singular, of the broken bread of the Eucharist in Didache 9:3-4. This episode also recalls God’s feeding of Israel in the desert with manna. See the Bread of Life Discourse in the gospel of John (Ch. 6).

14:22 “Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.” Again, further evidence of a distinction between the twelve disciples and other crowds of followers. Church governance is not a democracy.

14:28-31 “Peter said to him in reply, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ He said, ‘Come.’ Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’ Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, ‘O you of little faith, why did you doubt?'” A story featuring Peter is highlighted by Matthew. Again, this is evidence of the primacy of Peter. What other apostle is mentioned by name in the gospels more than Peter? No one. It is not a particularly flattering story for Peter, but it is symbolic of the Catholic faith that Jesus will not allow the Church built on the Rock of Peter to sink. And of course, there’s that phrase again “little faith” (see previous comments).

15:3, 6, 9 “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?… You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. ‘…in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'” Protestants like to say that Catholic sacraments and traditions are of man and not of God, but they are actually attested to, more or less, in Scripture and very compatible with Scripture. Moreover, the historical record demonstrates that Catholic beliefs and practices go back to the early Church while distinctly Protestant doctrines go back only five centuries or so (or pop up here and there among wildly errant heretics who even Protestants would recognize as such). So these verses have much more sting for Protestantism than for Catholicism. The former’s doctrines of Sola Interpretatio Mea Privata Scripturae, assured salvation, sola fide, and the rejection of apostolic traditions are actually all man-made traditions that the apostles would not recognize as Christian.

15:15 “Then Peter said to him in reply, ‘Explain (this) parable to us.'” Here, as in other places in the New Testament, Peter speaks on behalf of all the Twelve. Another piece of evidence for his primacy.

15:23, 25, 27-28 “His disciples came and asked him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.’… But the woman came and did him homage, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’… She said, ‘Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.’ Then Jesus said to her in reply, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.'” Again, as with 8:5-13 and 9:20-22 and 9:27-29, my point is that this woman had a certain kind of faith, a faith that was matched by action, in this case her persistent calling out to Jesus and the apostles, doing him homage, and her prescient reply to Jesus.

15:36 “Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, gave thanks, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds.” See my comment for 14:19-20.

16:4 “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” See my comments for 12:39.

16:12 “Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Jesus asserts his own authority to rescind traditional Jewish laws. Interestingly, this warning comes right before Jesus confers great authority upon St. Peter.

16:16-19 “Simon Peter said in reply, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'” This is the key Catholic passage that stymies Protestants. The first thing to notice is that Jesus confers upon Simon a new name, Peter, which literally means “rock.”  So Jesus is actually using a play on words: “you are Rock, and upon this rock….” “Rock” is a highly significant title in Scripture and no other apostle receives a new name or title from Jesus. Next, Jesus says that His church is built upon the rock that is Peter. Protestants have desperately tried to deny that Peter is the rock either by ignoring the literal translation or by gender gymnastics, saying the gender of rock and Peter don’t match. This is such a flimsy exegetical route because Jesus spoke Aramaic in which the gender “problem” disappears. Moreover, this church will not succumb to death; it will prevail over death. Combine Peter’s title with Jesus’ parable at 7:24-27 and then you have a church that will not be swept away by the raging rain, floods, and winds of time, space, and fallen human nature. Then Jesus, still talking to Peter, says He will give him alone the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Thus there is an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the Church and the kingdom of heaven. Now at that time and place in history, keys were strong symbols of power and authority that belonged to great rulers. In fact, it probably refers back to Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David” which he authoritative “opens and shuts” (22:22), keys which are passed down as with the succession of popes. Lastly, Jesus confers upon Peter (and later on the other eleven) the authority to “bind and loose.” Again, the Christian has to consider the cultural context of such a phrase to truly understand what this verse of Scripture is saying. That phrase, “bind and loose,” is found often in rabbinical literature. It refers to the giving of binding, authoritative teaching and also to excommunication from the religious community. All of this is strong, if not conclusive, Scriptural support for papal primacy and authority.

16:26 “What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” Spiritual/moral needs and obligations take precedence over material needs. Alleviating poverty through state-enforced plunder and violence (among other immoral things) is not Christian.

16:27 “For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.” Again, both faith and works are necessary.

16:22-23 “Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, ‘God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you. ‘He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.'” Ironically, right after he is given authority in Scripture, Peter shows himself to be ignorant of the importance of the mission of Jesus. This episode does not have any bearing on the authority Peter was given by Christ. Jesus doesn’t take the authority back of anything. Peter just doesn’t fully understand yet what Jesus has to do. Keep in mind this is the first time in the gospel that Jesus predicts His own passion and death. None of the disciples understood then.

17:1 “After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.” Jesus established a hierarchy among the Twelve during his earthly ministry. Peter, James, and John were part of an inner circle. As with the transfiguration here, Jesus again sets these three apart in the Garden of Gethsemane (26:37). Peter is mentioned first, as usual, and is always part of the inner circle. This is more evidence of his primacy. There was a hierarchy among the Twelve, apparently three-tiered. There’s a three-tiered system now: bishop, cardinal, pope.

17:4 “Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, ‘Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.'” As is typical in Scripture, Peter then speaks on behalf of all the disciples, or the three of them in this instance. This is more evidence of his primacy.

17:19-20 “Then the disciples approached Jesus in private and said, ‘Why could we not drive it out?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.'” Again, as with 6:30, 8:26, and 15:28, there are different degrees of faithfulness to God. The faith of one Christian is not just as good as the faith of any other Christian.

17:24-25 “When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax approached Peter and said, ‘Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?‘Yes,’ he said. Again, it is Peter mentioned in Scripture. The collectors approach him, not another disciple. And he speaks on behalf of Jesus. This is more evidence of his primacy.

17:25-27 “When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, ‘What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?’ When he said, ‘From foreigners,’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the subjects are exempt. But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.'” Here we have one of many private conversations and episodes between Peter and Jesus. How many private conversations does Jesus have with other disciples in Scripture? Few to none, I believe. Moreover, Jesus miraculously pays the tax for Peter, not for any other disciple. This is more evidence of his primacy. It should also be noted that Jesus pays the tax not because he has to but to keep the peace temporarily. That seems to be the same situation of conservatives right now paying unfair taxes to D.C.

18:2-4 “He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'” What? The greatest is not the one who most cleverly and talentedly interprets Scripture according to his or her private reason?! Yep, that’s right. Child-like humility and obedience to the legitimate authority of the Church is necessary. In fact, it is the first step in responsibly using one’s reason to understand traditional Catholic doctrines.

18:7 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” False teachers  and abusive Church leaders will receive great punishment, if not damnation. Note that such abuses “must come” according to Jesus. But sinful conduct by clergy cannot undermine the Church that Jesus promised would prevail. And the fact that it has prevailed for almost 2000 yrs despite some heinous historical abuses by its leaders is evidence of this promise.

18:8-9 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.” As with 5:29-30, just as good deeds are necessary to enter the kingdom, sin leads to damnation. Sin is a serious issue for the disciple of Christ: no sacrifice is too large to avoid sin and thus avoid hell.

18:10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.” Scriptural evidence, if not proof, for guardian angels.

18:15, 17-18 “”If your brother sins (against you)…. 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. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The bracketed words “against you” are widely attested but they are not in the important codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or in some other textual witnesses. This broadens the potential sin in question, including heresy.  The “church” referred to here is the local church. Now what is the point of Jesus saying “tell the church” unless the church actually has real authority as a visible, unified, identifiable institution? The judgment of the local church (which we know from elsewhere in Scripture and from history was headed by a presbyter/bishop) is binding, ratified in heaven. These verses also justify the Catholic doctrine of excommunication, the expulsion of a defiant, unrepentant sinner/heretic from the community. The important point here is that individual Christians, though obligated to forgive, do not bind and loose. What was previously granted to Peter alone is granted to the other eleven. All of Chapter 18 seems to be addressed to the Twelve alone (verse 1: “At that time the disciples approached Jesus….”). This is the original, traditional interpretation of these verses.

18:34-35 “Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.” Forgiveness for the Christian depends not merely on faith but also on obedience to the will of God. One element of that obedience is forgiving everyone who sins against you. We must forgive to be forgiven. The Father’s forgiveness, already given, will be withdrawn at the final judgment for those who have not imitated His forgiveness by forgiving others. No one can “pay back the whole debt” without God.

19:3-6, 9 “Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?’ He said in reply, ‘Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator “made them male and female” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate…. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.’ As in 5:31-32, Jesus deepens the law. The Mosaic law recognized divorce as legitimate, but he asserts an absolute prohibition of divorce. Infidelity is no excuse for divorce. The “unlawful” marriage referred to is incest of various kinds, which did happen among Gentiles of the time.

19:10-12 “[His] disciples said to him, ‘If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ He answered, ‘Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.’ Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.'” This must be a very puzzling passage for the Protestant, who rejects vocational celibacy. Protestantism ignores these verses and this command from Jesus, for there are no Protestants who renounce marriage and take vows of celibacy. The religious life which includes a vow of celibacy is a calling, a vocation, something “that is granted” to a person. If Protestant hostility to celibacy can’t be Scriptural, it has to derive from perverted modern notions about sexuality and self-indulgence.

19:14 “Jesus said, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'” See note for 18:2-4. Also, this account is understood by some as intended to justify the practice of infant baptism. That interpretation is based principally on the command not to prevent the children from coming, since that word sometimes has a baptismal connotation in the New Testament (Acts 8:36). I think the many Scriptural attestations to whole households being baptized is a much stronger justification though (e.g. 1 Cor 1:16).

19:16-17 “Now someone approached him and said, ‘Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?’ He answered him, ‘Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'” Again, obedience to the commandments of God, esp. the 10 foundational ones, is necessary to have eternal life, i.e. salvation. Notice Jesus does NOT say: “You don’t have to do anything at all, let alone anything good. Just believe in me and sin boldly all you want.”

19:21 “Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” Every self-proclaimed biblical literalist/fundamentalist should be a naked, wandering beggar who doesn’t even possess a Bible. Protestants arbitrarily and unauthoritatively pick and choose when they want to take a certain passage literally and when they want to take it figuratively. Jesus gave this command only to this man who approached him; it is a command for one who seeks extraordinary perfection. The fundamental lesson is that Christians must be willing to let go of any superfluous personal possessions to help the poor in their community. We must not be possessed by our own possessions. This verse is justification for the vow of poverty that Catholic clergy take.

19:22-24 “When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.'” The rich are under heavy scrutiny by God because they have the most to give to the poor in charitable compassion and are often too attached to their wealth. Moreover, in those ancient times, the rich usually did not obtain their wealth by moral means (i.e. providing goods and services in the marketplace) but through coercion and inheritance. Actual renunciation of all riches is not demanded of all; Matthew counts the rich Joseph of Arimathea to be a disciple of Jesus. The “poor in spirit” will enter the kingdom (5:3).

19:27 “Then Peter said to him in reply, ‘We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?'” Again, Peter is mentioned and speaks on behalf of the Twelve. This is more evidence of his primacy. This is also Scriptural support for priestly celibacy. The apostles gave up their wives or at least marital relations with them.

19:28 “Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'” The Twelve are set apart from all other followers of Jesus. They were given governing authority over the New Israel that did not end with their deaths. And they will participate in the authority of Christ apparently at the Last Judgment. (This verse also helps confirm that when Matthew says “disciples,” he means the Twelve.)

20:14-15 “Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?” This parable of the workers in the vineyard teaches Christians that salvation doesn’t depend on when someone becomes a Christian. We cannot be jealous or bitter toward such people like the older son in the parable of the prodigal son. One could convert on one’s deathbed or maybe even after death perhaps if one had never had a chance to hear the gospel. But such a conversion must be sincere to be saving, and a life full of wickedness may preclude such last minute sincerity.

20:17 “As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve (disciples) aside by themselves, and said to them on the way….” Again, in Matthew, “disciples” refers to the Twelve, who are given special attention and authority by Jesus among all his followers. That the Twelve seem to grumble among themselves in Scripture about who is the greatest is also evidence that they were treated differently by Jesus relative to the rest of his followers.

20:25-28 “But Jesus summoned them and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.'” Jesus does not deny that some have authority and that some do not. Rather, he explains how the Twelve are to exercise the authority that he has conferred upon them. This verse is the inspiration for Pope Gregory the Great’s (and all subsequent popes’) title: Servus Servorum Dei. Also the last line indicates that “many,” but not all, will accept the grace, salvation, service, and ransom that Jesus offers all mankind. Also, what implications do you think this verse has for slavery as an institution?

21:12-13 “Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And he said to them, ‘It is written: “My house shall be a house of prayer,” but you are making it a den of thieves.'” Buying, selling, and money-changing in themselves are not evil. These market activities were not secular in nature but directly related to Jewish worship in the temple. Thus Jesus is actually asserting is authority over the Jewish authorities in this episode.

21:19 “Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but found nothing on it except leaves. And he said to it, ‘May no fruit ever come from you again.’ And immediately the fig tree withered.” This cursing of the fig tree is not random but means something symbolically. It is a sign of the judgment that is to come upon Israel who, with all its apparent piety, lacks the fruit of good deeds (Matthew 3:10) and will soon bear the punishment of its fruitlessness (Matthew 21:43). Some scholars propose that this story is the development in tradition of a parable of Jesus about the destiny of a fruitless tree, such as Luke 13:6-9. Again, one MUST bear fruit to achieve salvation.

21:21 “Jesus said to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, “Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,” it will be done.'” It is possible to waver from the faith. Thus one can indeed lose one’s faith and fall from grace through willful disobedience.

21:23-24 “When he had come into the temple area, the chief priests and the elders of the people approached him as he was teaching and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?’ Jesus said to them in reply, ‘I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things.'” Jesus does not deny that religious authority exists, for often he appeals to his own authority apart from Scripture. Religious truth is dependent on legitimately established authority. By what authority do Protestants believe what they do? None. They have no authority and never have, going all the way back to Luther. They have no authority to interpret Scripture definitively and to live by their own interpretations. Scripture is secondary but complementary to legitimate authority, whether it be Jesus or the Church, which established Scripture’s Table of Contents (an unbiblical tradition of Protestants).

21:41 “They answered him, ‘He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.'” Again, this parable teaches that the Christian must “give God the produce” if he really believes. Action is necessary.

21:43 “Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.” The kingdom of God will be taken away from any Protestant (and any Christian) who does not produce fruit worthy of the kingdom.

22:10-14 “The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen.” The parable of the wedding feast (salvation in Isaiah 25:6) is also indicative of Catholic doctrine. The first to be invited into God’s kingdom are the Jews, but they reject the invitation. Then God invites the Gentiles, but not everyone who nominally accepts the Lord’s invitation in “faith” is chosen to stay. The true Christian wears the “wedding garment” of good deeds. Those who do not are cast out into hell and receive the same punishment as those who refused to believe to begin with. One cannot merely waltz into heaven because one wants to; one must prepare oneself for the occasion through obedience.

22:20-21 “He said to them, ‘Whose image is this and whose inscription?’ They replied, ‘Caesar’s.’ At that he said to them, ‘Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.'” Here Jesus establishes the principle of the institutional separation of church and state. He side-steps the trap of the Pharisees by merely restating the classical definition of justice. He is silent on what exactly does belong to the state. It is implied apparently that we must pay taxes for legitimate government functions, but this verse is not a blank check for tyranny/socialism.

22:29-30 “Jesus said to them in reply, ‘You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.'” The sexual relationships of this world will be transcended; the risen body will be the work of the creative power of God. Sex is a sacred instrument of love and procreation, but, contrary to modern sexolatry, it is NOT essential for happiness, fulfillment, or salvation of any kind. There will be no sexuality in heaven.

23:1-3 “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.'” The authoritative “chair of Moses” was replaced by the authoritative “chair of St. Peter.” Jesus tells his disciples to temporarily observe the Mosaic law for now, but the context of the rest of Scripture makes it clear that the early Church had to and did break off from Jewish authority with regard to what laws and practices were binding.
Also, the “chair of Moses” cannot be found in Old Testament Scripture, making it an unbiblical tradition with respect to the Old Testament. This further undermines the heretical notion of sola Scriptura.

23:13 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.” The locking by the Pharisees is in stark contrast to the opening by St. Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus (Mt 16:19). The purpose of the authority expressed by that metaphor is to give entrance into the kingdom (the kingdom is closed only to those who reject the authority); here the charge is made by Jesus that the authority of the scribes and Pharisees is exercised in such a way as to be an obstacle to entrance. Also cf. Lk 11:52 where the accusation against the “scholars of the law” (Matthew’s scribes) is that they “have taken away the key of knowledge.” The keys of St. Peter restore Christian truth.

23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others.” Besides rejecting Jesus and participating in his murder, the sin of the Pharisees was not that they had the law or observed the law. It is that they perverted the law in some cases and ignored the most important laws, especially with regard to inner moral purity. And Jesus isn’t denouncing tithes here either; He is merely pointing out their relative value morally.

23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” Just like the Jews of old, we all have a choice. God yearns to save all, but we must willfully choose to believe and obey to take advantage of the free offer of grace. The coexistence of grace and free will is a mystery, but both must be accepted.

24:10-13 “And then many will be led into sin; they will betray and hate one another.Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.” I think there have been many apostates and false prophets, esp. within the more liberal Christian churches, but these churches are the children of the Protestant Revolution and its heresy of Sola Interpretatio Mea Privata Scripturae. And thus there has been an increase in evildoing in America over time. But he who perseveres in the true faith to the end will be saved. That’s right: it doesn’t matter if you once professed Jesus to be your Lord and Savior sometime in the past. Who we are, what we believe, and what we have done by the time of our death is what matters most for our salvation, not some long gone instant of a profession of faith.

24:24 “False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.” Notice that this verse seems to contradict certainty of assured salvation.

24:44-46, 48-51 “So too, you also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come. Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so…. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is long delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards, the servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” Wicked, hypocritical servants will be punished, even clergy. Now tell me, what is it in Protestantism that demands preparedness in any sense of the word? Nothing. One merely “believes” and then goes about one’s merry way in life. Sure, many Protestants strive to be and even achieve great holiness here on earth, but that is not for the purpose of preparation in the urgent and dire Scriptural sense. Such obedience is apparently optional to the Protestant. “Faith” has prepared all for them, which is silly. One mere mental assent to Jesus as Lord and Savior is not preparation nor faith. Preparation is a process over time and requires action and discipline. Husband and wife are faithful over time, not merely because they said “I do” on their wedding day that began their unique relationship.

All of Chapter 25 is about salvation and the Final Judgment.

25:1-13 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them, but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps. Since the bridegroom was long delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight, there was a cry, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise ones replied, ‘No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.’ While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked. Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’ Therefore, stay awake, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” This is another parable stressing preparedness to enter the kingdom of heaven. See me previous comment. Again, it is not enough to merely want to enter the kingdom, acknowledging the Bridegroom; one must be ready for it in obedience. To fall asleep is to sin and fall away from grace and the faith.

25:14-30 “It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one–to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. Likewise, the one who received two made another two. But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money. After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’ (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, ‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’ Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'” God is “a demanding person.” He demands obedience, though He will mercifully forgive sins that we sincerely repent. The “wicked, lazy servant” was punished for what he did NOT do; this would be sins of omission. If we do not return an “interest” to God in the form of obedience and good works “each according to his ability,” then we will be thrown “into the darkness outside,” i.e. hell. Also, again, Jesus uses a very capitalist parable that mentions a kind of “usury.” Interesting….

25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Jesus cites actions for why the sheep are let into the kingdom of heaven. The goats are damned for what they did not do, as with the “wicked, lazy servant.” Again, not everyone gets into heaven.

26:6-11 “Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, ‘Why this waste? It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.’ Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, ‘Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.'” This passage supports the Catholic practice of “costly” church buildings, chalices, statues, stain glass, organs, and other material objects that glorify God. Helping the poor is NOT the first commandment.

26:14 “Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests….” Again, there is something special about “the Twelve” as opposed to all the followers of Jesus.

26:20 “When it was evening, he reclined at table with the Twelve.” Again, there is something special about “the Twelve” as opposed to all the followers of Jesus. Only they were at the Last Supper.

26:26-28 “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.'” Here Jesus institutes the sacrament of the Eucharist. Jesus is very short and to the point, according to Matthew. There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus is speaking figuratively, which wouldn’t make any sense really. Plus this literal interpretation is the original, traditional interpretation of the early Church which believed in transustantiation. Ireneaus, early father transub

26:31-35 “Then Jesus said to them, ‘This night all of you will have your faith in me shaken, for it is written: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed”; but after I have been raised up, I shall go before you to Galilee.’ Peter said to him in reply, ‘Though all may have their faith in you shaken, mine will never be.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Amen, I say to you, this very night before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ Peter said to him, ‘Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you.’ And all the disciples spoke likewise.” Faith in Jesus can be shaken, despite what we presently say and think. Again, Peter is highlighted from among the Twelve. This is more evidence of his primacy.

26:36-37 “Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I go over there and pray.’ He took along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to feel sorrow and distress.” As with the transfiguration scene (17:1),  the inner circle of three disciples with Peter alone mentioned first and by name.

26:40-41 “He said to Peter, ‘So you could not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.'” Again, only Peter is addressed.

26:47 “While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived….” Again, “the Twelve” is distinguished among Jesus’ followers.

26:52-54 “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels? But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?'” I note this passage only to combat notions of pacifism that infect some Christian denominations. Jesus doesn’t say throw the sword away but to put it “back into its sheath.” Then was not the time to act heroically on behalf of a friend. Jesus could have defended Himself if He wanted to. But He was obedient to the Father, so that the Scripture prophecies could be fulfilled.

26:56, 58 “Then all the disciples left him and fled…. Peter was following him at a distance as far as the high priest’s courtyard, and going inside he sat down with the servants to see the outcome.” Peter alone, according to Matthew, did not leave and flee. More evidence of primacy.

26:69-70 “Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. One of the maids came over to him and said, ‘You too were with Jesus the Galilean.’ But he denied it in front of everyone….” Again, an episode that highlights Peter alone. There are few such gospel stories that focus on other individual disciples; there are many of just Peter.

27:57-60 “When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who was himself a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be handed over. Taking the body, Joseph wrapped it (in) clean linen and laid it in his new tomb that he had hewn in the rock.” The reason I note this passage is because it shows a rich man who is deemed a follower of Jesus, even though he is rich. He uses his riches in the service of God, for a tomb for Jesus. Remember, we’re still looking at the same gospel where Jesus told the young man to sell all his possessions. Obviously, one doesn’t have to be completely destitute to be a disciple. In fact, Scripture gives hints that relatively wealthy women supported the ministry of Jesus and his disciples (Lk 8:5)

28:16 “The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.” This is more confirmation that when Matthew says “disciples” elsewhere, he means the Twelve.

28:19-20 “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.” Jesus tells the apostles to go make the Church catholic, i.e. universal. This is also the only verse in Scripture that even comes close to supporting the doctrine of the Trinity, the tradition of the Triune God. The verse does not explicitly and comprehensively lay out the doctrine of the Trinity, yet Protestants still believe it. One might say this is an “unbiblical” tradition that Protestants still choose to believe. Jesus is only speaking to the 11 here. While we are all called to evangelize and teach others, only the apostles and their successors may teach with binding authority. Lastly, Jesus is ever -present in the Church until He comes again, esp. in the Eucharist and through the Holy Spirit.

Posted in Biblical Exegesis, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

St. Irenaeus’ Confirmation All Catholic Doctrines (2nd c. AD)

Posted by Tony Listi on May 23, 2010

St. Irenaeus (b. ca. 115-142), in his Against Heresies, confirms almost every core Catholic doctrine: Roman/papal supremacy, the sacrifice of the Mass, transubstantiation in the Eucharist, the continuation of the earthly priesthood, the crucial mission and authority of the institutional Church, Church authority over Scriptural interpretations, the existence and authority of unchangeable and unbroken apostolic Tradition and succession through bishops, the necessity of obedience (as well as repentance and forgiveness) for salvation, denunciations of schismatics, Mary as the new Eve and as a cause of our salvation, prayers for the dead, the activity of the saints, etc.

Moreover, his work is filled with citations of Scripture.

He begins the work by acknowledging the plausibility of the heresies:

Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, “minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,” and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation…. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

How do these heretics rationalize their heresy? Like all heretics, they use Scripture and claim superior understanding or mystical assistance in its interpretation:

They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it.

Protestants have all these “experts” in exegesis for rationalizing their interpretations. When “reason” fails (as it always does, for there are endless plausible interpretations in isolation from Church tradition/history), the mystical and arbitrary support of the “Holy Spirit” supplies certainty for them.

Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a steadfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Heretics by no means avoid or flee from Scripture. They are eager to make Scripture fit within their preconceived, dogmatic, heretical theology and worldview. And it’s easily done by those of creative imagination and “craftiness.” For Scripture passages “can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected.”

How does St. Irenaeus know with certainty that the doctrines in question are heresy? He tells us the apostles did not “deliver” such doctrines to the Church:

Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions…. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions.

All heretics know they have to find support within Scripture, otherwise they would have no support whatsoever for their errors and/or lies, for the authority and unchanging tradition of the Church always stand firmly against them.

Irenaeus condemns the heretics and offers a conclusive coup de grace which proves they are heretics:

You see, my friend, the method which these men employ to deceive themselves, while they abuse the Scriptures by endeavouring to support their own system out of them. For this reason, I have brought forward their modes of expressing themselves, that thus you might understand the deceitfulness of their procedure, and the wickedness of their error….

But since what may prove a finishing-stroke to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms an a priori proof that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.

The clearest indication that a certain denomination is heretical is that their leaders keep dividing and schisming among themselves. At first there was only Luther; then came Calvin, Zwingli, and a horde of others. Now there are innumerable heretical sects that have sprung from the seed of Luther’s Revolution. There are now many different synods or conventions within mainstream Protestant lines. In many cases, Christianity has been degraded into a private, individual religion, cut off from any resemblance to the original apostolic faith that proclaims the true Church is of one Mind and one Body.

So how is the Christian to know which exegesis of and approach to Scripture is correct? Irenaus tells us that Holy Tradition, handed down unchanged historically from the apostles and universally throughout the world, is our assurance:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: … [Irenaeus gives a creed]

…but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. 

The true faith is received from the Church, not mystically or rationally divined from Scripture by individual believers. Notice also that immortality and salvation are given to those who are obedient to God’s commandments, which is perseverance in His love. “Faith alone” in some purely abstract/mental sense is not enough.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

Truth does not change. The Christian faith could not change in the 2nd century AD. It was already complete and perfect. Moreover, the true Church preserves the faith in its purity and hands it on, nothing more or less. Thus any later deviations from the Holy Tradition of the Church are by definition heretical, including the man-made traditions of the Protestant Revolution which popped into existence in the 16th century.

It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith….

God never intended for individual intelligence or reason in and of itself to determine doctrine authoritatively, not to mention change it.

…as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.

It is the catholic, the universal, Church that possesses the true faith.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Church Fathers, Church History, Religion and Theology, The Papacy, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Were the early Church fathers corrupted by paganism?

Posted by Tony Listi on February 16, 2010

What former evangelical Protestant and apologist Mark Shea calls the “Pagan Creep Theory” is the standard Protestant retort (if any) that rationalizes away at will anything the early Church fathers say about Scripture that the Protestant wants to reject.

But this theory is unreasonable and can be reduced to absurdity. This theory only begs another question: you must really think Our Lord Jesus and the Twelve (and the Holy Spirit) were terribly incompetent in accurately spreading the gospel to these earliest Christian leaders, no?

As Shea correctly puts it, this theory means:

believing that everywhere the apostles went they–all of them–appointed successors who perverted their teaching on a dozen subjects as badly as modernism said that the apostles had perverted Christ’s. It meant that for sixty years of blood, sweat, and toil, the apostles made thousands of disciples so stupid that they could not grasp the most elementary teachings of their faith. It meant believing that their churches–all of them in north, south, east, and west– paganized Christianity (and paganized it everywhere in the same way) the instant the apostles died. It meant that these churches, together with their overseers who had been handpicked by the apostles, were constantly engaged in a schizophrenic campaign of deliberate pagan perversion of the Faith while simultaneously dying in droves for the purity of that Faith. It meant believing that the immediate successors to the apostles (and the flocks they shepherded) were both martyrs against all pagan compromise and punctillious observers of Scripture, and yet simultaneously secret devotees of  Mithra, Isis, and the mystery cults. It meant believing that in some fantastic fashion quite unparalleled in history, this outburst of amnesia, heresy, and schizophrenia (beginning well before the death of the Apostle John and spanning the length of the Roman Empire) managed to completely pervert the Faith once given to the saints without one of those saints taking notice at all–the very same saints who were willing to be burned alive for Christ rather than offer a tiny pinch to Caesar.

If we can’t trust the beliefs and practices of the Christians whom the original apostles taught and laid hands on (conferring the Spirit), then we can trust no one’s supposedly Christian beliefs and practices!

Posted in Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Church Fathers, Church History, Religion and Theology, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Biblical Evidence Against Contraception

Posted by Tony Listi on February 14, 2010

By Dave Armstrong
Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Proposition
The Catholic ban on contraception is an arbitrary, unbiblical restriction.
It’s just one of many areas where Catholics are out of the mainstream.

Initial reply
The prohibition of contraception was commonly accepted by all Christians: Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, until 1930. It is a biblical and patristic belief.

Extensive reply
Here is the classic biblical passage having to do with contraception:
Genesis 38:8-10: “Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.”

This involved what is known as the “levirate law”: the duty to produce offspring with the wife of a dead brother. But this is not why God killed Onan, since the penalty for that was public humiliation and shunning, not death (Dt. 25:5-10). Context also supports this interpretation, since immediately after this (Gen. 38:11-26), is the story of Onan’s father Judah refusing to enforce the law and allow his other son, Shelah to produce a child with Tamar, his daughter-in-law. He was afraid that Shelah would be killed like Onan and his other wicked son, Er (38:7,11). Judah acknowledges his sin in 38:26: “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” He wasn’t killed, so it is unreasonable to contend that Onan was judged and killed by God for the very same sin that Judah committed (in the same passage). Onan was judged for contraception (sex with the deliberate intent to unnaturally prevent procreation).

There are a host of other biblical passages which exalt fertility and the blessing of many children, and the curse of none:
1) Married couples are to “be fruitful and multiply”; this is a blessing (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7; 28:3; 35:11; Dt. 7:13-14; Ps. 107:38; 115:14; 128:1-4; Prov. 17:6; Ecc. 6:3).

2) Barrenness is contrary to blessing and “glory” (Ex. 23:25-26; Jer. 18:21; Hos. 9:11).

3) Procreation is central to marriage (Mal. 2:14-15).

4) Childbearing is so sacred that women are even said to be “saved” by it (1 Tim. 2:15).

5) It is God Who opens and closes wombs and causes a conception to occur (Gen. 20:17-18; 29:31; 30:2,22; Josh. 24:3-4; Ruth 4:13; Ps. 113:9).

6) Children are a gift from God (Gen. 17:16,20; 29:32-33; 33:5; Ps. 127:3).

Objection
But it is unreasonable in this day and age, in urban environments, to have ten or fifteen children. This is an outdated understanding of the meaning of marriage and parenthood. It may work on a farm or a desert, but not in cities and towns.

Reply to Objection
The Catholic Church doesn’t force married couples to have ten children! But it does require them to agree to be fruitful and always open to life as the deepest meaning and purpose of marital union (thus ruling out artificial contraception). The problem today is not the refusal to have ten children, but the (often selfish or cynical) decision to have none at all, or very few, so that in Europe, most countries are below zero population growth, meaning that couples are averaging less than two children (while Muslims continue to have lots of children). This is an “anti-child” mentality. Children are often viewed as a mere inconvenience or a burden (even to the point of being slaughtered before they are born). The Bible, on the other hand, clearly states over and over that children (and many of them) are a blessing. Yet, sadly, millions of Christians today are far closer in outlook to secular (or ancient pagan) culture than the biblical worldview:

1 Chronicles 25:5: “All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer, according to the promise of God to exalt him; for God had given Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.”

Psalm 127:3-5: “Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! . . .”

Martin Luther (the founder of Protestantism):

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works.
(The Estate of Marriage, 1522; Luther’s Works, Vol. 45, 46)

Luther and Calvin both wrote with extreme disdain for Onan and his sin, whereas many of today’s Protestants have a ho-hum or neutral attitude about these grave sins:

Martin Luther:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21)

John Calvin:

It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born . . . Moreover he [Onan] thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. (Commentary on Genesis [38])

G.K. Chesterton:

It has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility . . . The new priests abolish the fatherhood and keep the feast – to themselves.
(The Well and the Shallows, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935, 233)

[It was only until the early 20th century that Protestants started abandoning or ignoring even their own traditional Scriptural interpretation of Onan. I guess the Truth of the Word changes for Protestants whenever they feel like it should, whenever they feel that it is a barrier to their own self-indulgence.]

Posted in Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

95 Uniquely Catholic Passages of Scripture

Posted by Tony Listi on February 2, 2010

Adapted from Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses.

Another helpful link with verses for each Catholic doctrine here.

The Church is “The Pillar of the Truth”
1) “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

The Binding Authority of Councils, Led By the Holy Spirit
2) “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29)

3)”As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” (Acts 16:4)

The Authority of Oral Tradition
4) “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14)

5) “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:2)

6) “Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)

7) “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42)

Sinners in the Church
8 ) “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.” (2 Cor 11:2-4)

9) “Paul an apostle — not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead –and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.” (Gal 1:1-6)

10) “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: `The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'” (Rev 3:1-6)

Christians Ought to Be One as Jesus and His Father Are One
11) “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” (Jn 17:20-23)

A Multiplicity of Divisions Is a Bad Thing
12) “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” (1 Cor 11:17-19)

St. Paul Forbids Dissensions and Denominationalism
13) “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.” (Rom 16:17)

14) “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:10-13)

15) “For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ and another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ are you not merely men?” (1 Cor 3:3-4)

16) “But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.” (1 Cor 12:24-25)

17) “…complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” (Philippians 2:2)

The Necessity of Authoritative Interpretation/Scripture is Not Perspicuous
18) “…the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

19) “And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go up and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:27-31)

20) “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation….”(2 Pet 1:20)

21) “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Pet 3:15-16)

The Binding Authority of Tradition According to St. Paul
22) “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11:2)

23) “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (1 Thes 2:13)

24) “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes 2:15)

25) “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” (2 Thes 3:6)

Oral and Extra-biblical Tradition in the New Testament
26) “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'” (Mt 2:23)

27) “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'” (Mt 23:1-3)

(There are many cases of New Testament writers appealing to extra-biblical/oral traditions that cannot be found in the Old Testament–1 Cor 10:4; 1 Peter 3:19; Jude 9, 14-15; 2 Tim 3:8; James 5:17)

St. Peter as The Rock and Possessor of the Keys of the Kingdom
28) “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

29) “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isa 22:20-22)

Faith and Works: Two Sides of the Same Coin
30) “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24; see also 1:22, 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 26)

No Instant, Assured Salvation/Must Be Worked Out
31) “He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” (1 Cor 3:8-9)

32) “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.” (1 Cor 15:10)

33) “Working together with him [God], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1)

34) “For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet 1:8-11)

35) “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.” (Philippians 2:12-16)

Obedience is Necessary for Salvation
36) “And a ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.”‘ And he said, ‘All these I have observed from my youth.’ And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, ‘One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. Jesus looking at him said, ‘How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'” (Lk 18:18-25)

37) “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb 5:8-9)

38) “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” (Rom 5:17-19)

Falling Away from the Faith and Salvation
39) “…but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Cor 9:27)

40) “Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12)

41) “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery…. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Gal 5:1, 4)

42) “Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” (Philippians 3:8-16)

43) “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:1)

Apostasy Exists and Happens/No Certainty Someone is Saved
44) “Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end” (Heb 3:12-14)

45) “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation. For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (Heb 6:4-12)

46) “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words…. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be’or, who loved gain from wrongdoing” (2 Pet 2:1-3, 14-15)

47) “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.” (2 Pet 2:20-22)

Crucial Role of Works (and Absence of Faith) From Judgment Day Accounts
48) “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.” (Mt 7:16-27)

49) “For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.” (Mt 16:27)

50) “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mt 25:31-46)

51) “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.” (2 Cor 5:10)

52) “And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.” (1 Pet 1:17)

53) “”Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.” (Rev 22:12)

54) “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” (Eccl 12:13-14)

St. Paul: “Doers of the Law” Will Be Justified
55) “But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works:to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” (Rom 2:5-13)

Baptism of Entire Households (Including Children)
56) “And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ And she prevailed upon us.” (Acts 16:15)

57) “And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God.” (Acts 16:33)

58) “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.” (1 Cor 1:16)

Baptismal Regeneration (Mental Conversion Does Not Regenerate)
59) “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'” (Jn 3:5)

60) “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” (Acts 2:38)

61) “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

62) “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:11)

63) “…he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5)

64) “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:19-21)

“This Is My Body”
65) “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'” (Lk 22:19-20)

“He Who Eats My Flesh and Drinks My Blood Has Eternal Life”
66) “‘Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.’ This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, ‘Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’ After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” (Jn 6:47-66)

“Participation” in the Body and Blood of Christ
67) “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)

Profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord
68) “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Cor 11:27-30)

Share in Christ’s Sufferings
69) “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Philippians 3:10)

70) “and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (Rom 8:17)

Carrying Christ’s Afflictions in Our Bodies
71) “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.” (2 Cor 4:10)

72) “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24)

The Imitation of St. Paul and Veneration of Saints
73) “I urge you, then, be imitators of me.” (1 Cor 4:16)

74) “Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.” (Philippians 3:17)

75) “For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.” (2 Thes 3:7-9)

Heavenly Saints as “Cloud of Witnesses” Watching Us
76) “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1)

Intercession of Heavenly Saints and Their Connection With the Earth
77) “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev 5:8)

78) “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?'” (Rev 6:9-10)

79) “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.” (Rev 8:3-4)

80) “And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli’jah, talking with him.” (Mt 17:1-3)

81) “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Mt 27:52-32)

Miraculous Powers of Saints’ Possessions and Relics
82) “So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:20-21)

83) “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, “My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. And he took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, “Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?” And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.” (2 Kings 2:11-14)

84) “so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.” (Acts 5:15-16)

85) “And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.” (Acts 19:11-12)

A Biblical Argument for Purgatory
86) “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw — each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Cor 3:11-15)

“Baptism” for the Dead: The Most Un-Protestant Verse
87) “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (1 Cor 15:29)

St. Paul Prays for Dead Man
88) “May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me —may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.” (2 Tim 1:16-18)

Prayers for the Dead…Who Come Back to Life
89) “Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room…. But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, ‘Tabitha, rise.’ And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.” (Acts 19:36-37, 40-41)

Full of Grace: Mary’s Sinlessness and Immaculate Conception
90) “And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored [kecharitomene] one, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:28)

Voluntary Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom/Priestly Celibacy
91) “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Mt 19:12)

92) “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Cor 7:7-9)

93) “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.” (1 Cor 7:32-38)

Jesus’ Absolute Prohibition of Divorce
94) “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [porneia], and marries another, commits adultery.” (Mt 19:9)

The Sin of Onan/Prohibition of Contraception
95) “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.” (Gen 38:9-10)

Posted in Catholicism, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Why Catholicism is Distinctly Conservative

Posted by Tony Listi on January 23, 2010

The Catholic faith teaches that grasping the truth about God, His Church, and His moral precepts is not an ongoing process that never ends. The Holy Spirit led the apostles and the Church built on their hand-picked successors “to all truth” (John 16:13).

While it may take some time for the individual to learn and humbly submit to all these truths, these truths have already been revealed and “handed down once for all” (Jude 1:3). The Christian faith was established with certainty and infallibility long before Martin Luther; it cannot be changed, no matter how scrupulously one studies the Bible. Nothing substantive or fundamental can be added to or subtracted from the early deposit of faith.

Personal Scriptural interpretations and younger, man-made Protestant traditions cannot possibly carry greater weight or be more accurate than the Scriptural interpretations of the early Church fathers and councils long before the Protestant Revolution and its “progressive” and innovative doctrinal additions to and subtractions from the one, traditional Faith handed down by the apostles, the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20).

However, grasping these fixed, traditional Christian truths as they apply to our individual lives and our striving to live out those truths (i.e. sanctification) is indeed an unending, life-long process. We need constant reminders of the truths that have already been revealed to us and constant reflection on how to apply them to our own lives. We need constant prayer for the grace and strength to practice and live out the fixed truths we already know, so that our faith may not be dead, useless, and in vain.

Therefore, Catholicism is distinctly conservative while all other denominations, to a greater or lesser extent, are necessarily liberal, relativist, fallibilist, and egocentric.

Though he’s talking about politics and conservatism, the following quote by William F. Buckley, Jr. (himself a Catholic) in Up from Liberalism applies very similarly to religion and Catholicism:

Conservatives do not deny the existence of undiscovered truths, but they make a critical assumption, which is that those truths that have already been apprehended are more important to cultivate than those undisclosed ones close to the liberal grasp only in the sense that the fruit was close to Tantalus…. Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgement that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. Whatever is to come cannot outweigh the importance to man of what has gone before.

With regard to epistemology, i.e. “critical assumption[s],” Protestantism and modern American liberalism are two sides of the same coin.

Posted in Catholicism, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Political Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Religion and Theology, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Earliest Church Fathers on Transubstantiation of Bread and Wine

Posted by Tony Listi on January 13, 2010

Why the heck should any Christian believe that Jesus was only speaking symbolically in Scripture about his body and blood in John 6 and Luke 22 when the earliest Church leaders (bishops) believed and acted otherwise?

It doesn’t get any clearer or earlier than St. Ignatius’ (died by 117 AD) denunciation of the Docetic heretics in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,  because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,  that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of  them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.  But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (emphasis mine)

More evidence from Ignatius’ letter to the Romans:

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterward of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. (emphasis mine)

This last citation of St. Ignatius in his letter to the Philadephians is less explicit but still supportive:

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. (emphasis mine)

St. Justin Martyr (died circa 165 AD) is also very explicit in his First Apology:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία  [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, (Luke 22:19) this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. (emphasis mine)

St. Irenaeus (died circa 200 AD) is also very clear in upholding transubstantiation in his rebuke of heretics:

But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord,  and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.” Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.  But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.  For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread,  but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (emphasis mine)

The Didache (written 100 AD) says:

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (emphasis mine)

Posted in Catholicism, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Church Fathers, Church History, Religion and Theology, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Clerical Celibacy: Scriptural and Historical Proofs

Posted by Tony Listi on December 20, 2009

Lately, I’ve been hearing objections to the Catholic imposition of celibacy on its clergy. Celibacy is not mandated in the Catholic Church in the same way that certain irreversible dogmas are. But while the practice could be changed in theory, it is disciplinary and desirable. And it is upheld by Scripture, the historical traditions of the early Church, and reason.

Ultimately, resistance to clerical celibacy must boil down to a rejection of the one true Christian (Catholic) understanding of sex, marriage, chastity, sacrament, the role of the pastor, and Church authority/Roman primacy.

Scriptural Proofs (emphases mine of course)

Jesus himself, St. John the Baptist, St. Paul, and the prophet Jeremiah were all celibate their entire lives. Jewish tradition also regard Elijah and Elisha to have been celibate.

Only Catholicism actually takes the following sacred verses seriously and incorporates them into its doctrine and practice.

Our Lord Jesus Christ said,

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Mt 19:12)

Why are non-Catholics unable to receive this truth from our Lord? Why do none of them embrace this highest standard and make themselves “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”? Why do they hold none of their members to this highest standard?

St. Paul said in great detail in 1 Corinthians 7:7-38:

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion . . . Every one should remain in the state in which he was called . . . . Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin . . . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord . . . So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Non-Catholics arbitrarily ignore these sacred and fairly straightforward verses. Moreover, St. Paul in particular aptly summarizes the reasonableness of celibacy. There is nothing I can think of to add to his argument.

How can Protestants criticize Catholicism for demanding that its clerics be like St. Paul, for demanding of its clerics the higher standard of celibacy that St. Paul wished/preferred for ALL Christians?

The Gospel of St. Matthew (19:27-29) tells us that those of the Twelve Apostles who had wives, especially St. Peter, left the company of their wives:

Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.

The Gospel of St. Luke (18:28-30) confirms this fact and more explicitly with regard to wives:

Then Peter said, “We have given up our possessions and followed you.” He said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.”

Specifically with regard to Peter, Mark 1:30-31 provides circumstantial evidence that Peter’s wife may have died or lived separately by the time he was following Jesus:

Simon’s mother-in-law lay sick with a fever. They immediately told him about her. He approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up. Then the fever left her and she waited on them.

Where is Peter’s wife in this scene? If she were alive or living in the same house, wouldn’t she have served the men?

In 1 Tim 5:9-12, St. Paul speaks of women who have made a voluntary pledge to be celibate:

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once, with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work. But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.

St. John in his Revelation (14:3-5) speaks of unmarried virgins who have remained faithful to God and entered the kingdom:

They were singing (what seemed to be) a new hymn before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been ransomed as the firstfruits of the human race for God and the Lamb. On their lips no deceit has been found; they are unblemished.

Yes, I am aware of 1 Tim 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, which say that a deacon or bishop should be “the husband of one wife.” However, the Apostle’s desire that other men might be as himself (1 Corinthians 7:7-8, already quoted) precludes the inference that he wished all ministers of the Gospel to be married.  This direction to Timothy and Titus is restrictive, not injunctive; it excludes men who have married more than once, but it does not impose marriage as a necessary condition. Also and importantly, these verses are silent on the issue of sexual intercourse. They speak of Church leaders potentially having children, not begetting them. To state the obvious, having a wife (and children) does not necessitate intercourse with her.

Moreover, the early Church fathers interpreted these verses to mean a prohibition against the ordination of remarried laymen, not against the ordination of virgins, who were actually preferred (Origen (and here), Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Pope Siricius, Epiphanius, Apostolic Canons)

And I am also quite aware of 1 Cor 9:3-6. Please see the commentary below of Tertullian and Pope Clement of Alexandria on this verse.

Even in the Old Testament there are proofs of the propriety of celibacy for men of God who undertake holy endeavors. According to Jewish tradition, Moses did not have marital relations with his wife Zipporah after his encounter with God in the burning bush. Also, before Moses went to meet God and receive the 10 Commandments, he orders the Israelites to purify themselves by abstaining from sex (Exodus 19:15): “He warned them, ‘Be ready for the third day. Have no intercourse with any woman.'”

God tells the prophet Jeremiah that he is to be celibate: “This message came to me from the LORD: Do not marry any woman; you shall not have sons or daughters in this place” (Jer 16:1-2).

David and his men are permitted to eat the holy temple bread because they have abstained from sexual relations with their wives:

“Now what have you on hand? Give me five loaves, or whatever you can find.” But the priest replied to David, “I have no ordinary bread on hand, only holy bread; if the men have abstained from women, you may eat some of that.” David answered the priest: “We have indeed been segregated from women as on previous occasions. Whenever I go on a journey, all the young men are consecrated–even for a secular journey. All the more so today, when they are consecrated at arms!” (1 Sam 21:4-6)

Historical Tradition: Early Fathers and Councils (emphases mine)

There can be no dispute that virginity was always held in honor historically in the Church, and that large numbers of the clergy practiced it or separated from their wives if they were already married . While there was no commandment for virginity, celibacy/continency was a general rule going back to apostolic times. Specifically, though many clergy had wives, they were expected to be wholly abstinent from sexual intercourse after their ordination.

Tertullian writes (circa 204-212 AD) commending the clergy and devoted women who practice celibacy:

How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact.

In his On Monogamy, Tertullian explains 1 Cor 9:3-6, saying that the wives and female companions of the apostles were merely ministers to them, not sex partners:

The rest [of the Twelve], while I do not find them married I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name— however, there is a name proper to wives— shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas? But when he subjoins those (expressions) which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, For have we not the power of eating and drinking? he does not demonstrate that wives were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply women, who used to minister to them in the same way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.

Pope St. Clement of Alexandria (died circa. 215) concurs:

Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?”  But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused.

Origen (185-254 AD) in his Homilies on Leviticus seems to contrast the spiritual offspring of the priests of the New Law with the natural offspring begotten in wedlock by the priests of the Old (In Levit. Hom. vi, no. 6).

Similarly, Eusebius (c. 265-340 AD) compares the relationship of Old Testament patriarchs and of Christian leaders to women and children. He says,

But in our days there are many external interests that draw us away, and involve us in uncongenial thoughts, and seduce us from our zeal for the things which please God. The word of the Gospel teaching certainly gives this as the cause of the limitation of marriage, when it says…

Eusebius then continues by quoting St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (7:29-35) as I did above. Most strikingly, he then says,

I am glad to say we are able to provide teachers and preachers of the word of holiness, free from all ties of life and anxious thoughts. And in our day these men are necessarily devoted to celibacy that they may have leisure for higher things; they have undertaken to bring up not one or two children but a prodigious number, and to educate them in godliness, and to care for their life generally.

On the top of all this, if we carefully examine the lives of the ancient men [of the Old Testament] of whom I am speaking, we shall find that they had children in early life, but later on abstained and ceased from having them…. To this I must refer the student, only warning him that according to the laws of the new covenant the producing of children is certainly not forbidden, but the provisions are similar to those followed by the ancient men of God. “For a bishop,” says the Scripture, “must be the husband of one wife.” Yet it is fitting that those in the priesthood and occupied in the service of God, should abstain after ordination from the intercourse of marriage.

The Spanish Council of Elvira (c. 300-315) in Canon 33 imposed celibacy on bishops, priests, and deacons. It applied only to clergy in Spain and is the oldest positive ecclesiastical ordinance for celibacy.

The Council of Ancyra (314) assumed that celibacy was the traditional norm in Canon 10. Marriage was allowed only as a concession/dispensation to a deacon from the bishop:

They who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was conceded to them by the bishop.  But if any were silent on this matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.

The Council of Neo-Caesarea (315) is even more stringent in Canon 1:

If a presbyter marry, let him be removed from his order; but if he commit fornication or adultery, let him be altogether cast out [i.e. of communion] and put to penance.

The Council of Nicaea (325) did not impose celibacy but did say in Canon 3:

The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.

No bishop, priest, or deacon was to have any woman living in the house with him, unless it were his mother, sister, or aunt, or at any rate persons against whom no suspicion could lodge. The clear implication is that clergy are to have no sexual relations after their ordination.

In writing about the birth of Jesus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) urges that the minister of the altar who serves God properly abstains from marriage/sex:

For it became Him who is most pure, and a teacher of purity, to have come forth from a pure bride-chamber. For if he who well fulfills the office of a priest of Jesus abstains from a wife, how should Jesus Himself be born of man and woman?

In his Panarion or Against Heresies (374-377), St. Epiphanius writes most vehemently in favor of clerical celibacy:

…in particular through those who observe continence after a single marriage and those who persevere in virginity, as also his apostles ordered in the ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood in the spirit of good order and religion.

He says also:

Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to.

While acknowledging that in some localities priests and deacons had children, Epiphanius argues against it and urges that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has always disapproved of that allowance.

St. Jerome writes in his famous (or should be famous) treatise “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” (c. 383) that though marriage may be a holy relationship, it presents a hindrance to prayer, and that virginity is more consonant with God’s will:

I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity.

In Jerome’s Against Jovinianus (393), he says that the apostles abandoned their marriages but not their wives, confirming Tertullian’s and Clement’s interpretation of 1 Cor 9:3-6:

In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: (Matthew 19:27) Lo we have left all and followed you, the Lord answered him, (Luke 18:29-30) Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words Have we no right to lead about women or wives (for γυνή in Greek has both meanings) even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord? let him add what is found in the Greek copies, Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives? This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterward made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance.

Jerome says that St. Paul “is anxious throughout the whole discussion to give virginity the preference over marriage” but that the early apostles “made the rules for fresh believers somewhat lighter that they might not in alarm shrink from keeping them.” And he continues, demanding celibacy of the bishop:

For he [St. Paul] does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children; but who marries one wife, and has his children in subjection and well disciplined. You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case— if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer….

He then demands celibacy/continence of the priest:

A layman, or any believer, cannot pray unless he abstain from sexual intercourse. Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage. For even under the old law they who used to offer sacrifices for the people not only remained in their houses, but purified themselves for the occasion by separating from their wives, nor would they drink wine or strong drink which are wont to stimulate lust.

St. Jerome gives preference to ordaining virgins, saying that the only reason non-virgins have been accepted into the priesthood is for practical, numerical reasons:

That married men are elected to the priesthood, I do not deny: the number of virgins is not so great as that of the priests required. Does it follow that because all the strongest men are chosen for the army, weaker men should not be taken as well? All cannot be strong. If an army were constituted of strength only, and numbers went for nothing, the feebler men might be rejected. As it is, men of second or third-rate strength are chosen, that the army may have its full numerical complement.

St. Jerome apparently could not foresee the future consequences of admitting “men of second or third-rate strength” to the priesthood, namely widespread clerical corruption of all sorts (including nepotism) that stains the history of the Catholic Church.

In Jerome’s Against Vigilantius (c. 406), he rips those bishops who ordain men not committed to continency:

Shameful to relate, there are bishops who are said to be associated with him in his wickedness— if at least they are to be called bishops— who ordain no deacons but such as have been previously married who credit no celibate with chastity— nay, rather, who show clearly what measure of holiness of life they can claim by indulging in evil suspicions of all men, and, unless the candidates for ordination appear before them with pregnant wives, and infants wailing in the arms of their mothers, will not administer to them Christ’s ordinance. What are the Churches of the East to do? What is to become of the Egyptian Churches and those belonging to the Apostolic Seat, which accept for the ministry only men who are virgins, or those who practice continency, or, if married, abandon their conjugal rights?

Lastly, in a letter to Pammachius, Jerome writes:

Again, when explaining the witness of the apostle to the Galatians, By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, I have spoken to the following effect: Marriages also are works of the law. And for this reason there is a curse upon such as do not produce offspring. They are permitted, it is true, even under the Gospel; but it is one thing to concede an indulgence to what is a weakness and quite another to promise a reward to what is a virtue. See my express declaration that marriage is allowed in the Gospel, yet that those who are married cannot receive the rewards of chastity so long as they render their due one to another. If men feel indignant at this statement, let them vent their anger not on me but on the Holy Scriptures; nay, more, upon all bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the whole company of priests and levites, who know that they cannot offer sacrifices if they fulfill the obligations of marriage….

Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity. Why do we delude ourselves and feel vexed if while we are continually straining after sexual indulgence, we find the palm of chastity denied to us? We wish to fare sumptuously, and to enjoy the embraces of our wives, yet at the same time we desire to reign with Christ virgins and widows. among Shall there be but one reward, then, for hunger and for excess, for filth and for finery, for sackcloth and for silk? Lazarus, (Luke 16:19-25) in his lifetime, received evil things, and the rich man, clothed in purple, fat and sleek, while he lived enjoyed the good things of the flesh but, now that they are dead, they occupy different positions. Misery has given place to satisfaction, and satisfaction to misery. And it rests with us whether we will follow Lazarus or the rich man.

St. Ambrose (340-397) writes in his On the Duties of the Clergy:

But ye know that the ministerial office must be kept pure and unspotted, and must not be defiled by conjugal intercourse; ye know this, I say, who have received the gifts of the sacred ministry, with pure bodies, and unspoilt modesty, and without ever having enjoyed conjugal intercourse. I am mentioning this, because in some out-of-the-way places, when they enter on the ministry, or even when they become priests, they have begotten children. They defend this on the ground of old custom, when, as it happened, the sacrifice was offered up at long intervals. However, even the people had to be purified two or three days beforehand, so as to come clean to the sacrifice, as we read in the Old Testament. They even used to wash their clothes. If such regard was paid in what was only the figure, how much ought it to be shown in the reality! Learn then, Priest and Levite, what it means to wash your clothes. You must have a pure body wherewith to offer up the sacraments. If the people were forbidden to approach their victim unless they washed their clothes, do you, while foul in heart and body, dare to make supplication for others? Do you dare to make anoffering for them?… You must show yourself continent and sober, and this needs temperance.

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) implies the high virtue of celibacy in his denunciation of envy among Christians:

For this cause, even if a man do miracles, have celibacy to show, and fasting, and lying on the bare ground, and does by this virtue advance even to the angels, yet shall he be most accursed of all, while he has this defect [of envy], and shall be a greater breaker of the Law than the adulterer, and the fornicator, and the robber, and the violator of supulchres.

Chrysostom also implies in his book On Priesthood the superiority of priests who have no wife or children:

For the recluse has but himself to fear for; or should he be forced to have the care of others they are easily counted: and if they be many, yet they are less than those in our Churches, and they give him who is set over them much lighter anxiety about them, not only on account of their fewness, but because they are all free from worldly concerns, and have neither wife nor children, nor any such thing to care about; and this makes them very deferential to their rulers, and allows them to share the same abode with them, so that they are able to take in their failings accurately at a glance and correct them, seeing that the constant supervision of a teacher is no little help towards advance in virtue. But of those who are subject to the Priest, the greater number are hampered with the cares of this life, and this makes them the slower in the performance of spiritual duties. Whence it is necessary for the teacher to sow every day (so to speak), in order that by its frequency at least, the word of doctrine may be able to be grasped by those who hear….. For the Priest ought not only to be thus pure as one who has been dignified with so high a ministry, but very discreet, and skilled in many matters, and to be as well versed in the affairs of this life as they who are engaged in the world, and yet to be free from them all more than the recluses who occupy the mountains. For since he must mix with men who have wives, and who bring up children, who possess servants, and are surrounded with wealth, and fill public positions, and are persons of influence, he too should be a many-sided man— I say many-sided, not unreal, nor yet fawning and hypocritical, but full of much freedom and assurance, and knowing how to adapt himself profitably, where the circumstances of the case require it, and to be both kind and severe, for it is not possible to treat all those under one’s charge on one plan, since neither is it well for physicians to apply one course of treatment to all their sick, nor for a pilot to know but one way of contending with the winds.

St. Augustine (354-430) writes in his On the Good of Marriage:

For what Christian men of our time being free from the marriage bond, having power to contain from all sexual intercourse, seeing it to be now a time, as it is written, not of embracing, but of abstaining from embrace, would not choose rather to keep virginal or widowed continence, than (now that there is no obligation from duty to human society) to endure tribulation of the flesh, without which marriages cannot be…. And this is so great a thing, that many at this day more easily abstain from all sexual intercourse their whole life through, than, if they are joined in marriage, observe the measure of not coming together except for the sake of children. Forsooth we have many brethren and partners in the heavenly inheritance of both sexes that are continent, whether they be such as have made trial of marriage, or such as are entirely free from all such intercourse: forsooth they are without number….

For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful. For the difference that separates times causes the due season to have so great force unto the justice and doing or not doing any thing, that now a man does better, if he marry not even one wife, unless he be unable to contain.

In 385 Pope Siricius responded back to a letter from Bishop Himerius of Tarragona with regard to clerical discipline (Directa decretal). He upholds priestly celibacy, writing:

For we learned that many priests and deacons of Christ, long after their ordination, have produced offspring both from their own wives and even through filthy liaisons, and defend their sin with this excuse, that it is read in the Old Testament that the opportunity to procreate was given to priests and ministers. Let him speak to me now, whoever is an addict of obscenities and a teacher of vices. If he thinks that here and there in the law of Moses the restraints of indulgence are relaxed by the Lord for sacred orders, why does He admonish those to whom the Holy of Holies was committed saying: “Be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy”? Why indeed were priests ordered to live in the temple, far from their homes, in the year of their service? Just for this reason: so that they could not engage in physical contact even with wives, and that shining in integrity of conscience they might offer acceptable service to God. The period of service having been completed, use of wives was permitted to them for reason of succession alone, because no one from a tribe other than of Levi was directed to be admitted to the ministry of God. Whence the Lord Jesus, when he enlightened us by his advent, testified in the Gospel that he had come to fulfill the law not to destroy it. And he wished thus that the figure of the Church, whose bridegroom he is, radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment when he comes again he can find her without stain and blemish, just as he taught through his Apostle. All we priests and deacons are bound by the unbreakable law of those sanctions, so that from the day of our ordination we subject our hearts and bodies to moderation and modesty in order that in every respect we might please our God in these sacrifices which daily we offer. “They who are in the flesh,” says the chosen vessel, “are unable to please God. But you are not now in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” And where can the Spirit of God dwell except, as we read, in holy bodies?… But those who lean on the excuse of an illicit privilege by asserting that this was conceded to them in the old law, let them know that they have been expelled by the authority of the apostolic see from every ecclesiastical office, which they used unworthily, nor can they ever touch the mysteries which ought to be venerated, of which they deprived themselves when they were obsessed with obscene desires…. Any cleric indeed who marries a widow or a second wife should thereupon be stripped of all privilege of ecclesiastical rank, with communion as only a layman conceded to him, which he can then have provided that he does nothing henceforth for which he should lose it. We certainly do not allow women in the houses of clerics, other than those alone whom the synod of Nicaea, for reasons only of necessities, permitted to live with them.

In 386, a Roman synod reaffirmed Pope Siricius’ edict forbidding priests and deacons to have conjugal intercourse with their wives and took steps to enforce it in the universal church. The Synod of Hippo (393) and other synods later reaffirmed clerical celibacy as well.

In that same year, Pope Siricius issued another decretal (Cum in unum) to various provinces, including the faraway churches of Africa. Again, he affirms clerical celibacy:

Moreover, as it is worthy, chaste, and honest to do so, this is what we advise: let the priests and Levites have no intercourse with their wives, inasmuch as they are absorbed in the daily duties of their ministries. Paul, when writing to the Corinthians, told them: “Leave yourself free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5). If lay people are asked to be continent so that their prayers are answered, all the more so a priest should be ready at any moment, thanks to immaculate purity, and not fearing the obligation of offering the sacrifice or baptizing. Were he soiled by carnal concupiscence, what could he do? Would he excuse himself? With what shame, in what state of mind would he carry out his functions? What testimony of conscience, what merit would give him the trust to have his prayers granted, when it is said: “To all who are pure themselves, everything is pure; but to those who have been corrupted and lack faith, nothing can be pure” (Titus 1:5). Which is why I am exhorting, warning, supplicating: let us do away with this opprobrium that even the pagans can rightly hold against us. Perhaps does one believe that this [is permitted] because it is written: “He must not have been married more than once” (1 Tim 3:2). But [Paul] was not talking about [a man] persisting in his desire to beget; he spoke about the continence that one should observe [propter continentiam futuram]. He did not accept those who were not beyond reproach [in this matter] and he said: “I should like everyone to be like me” (1 Cor 7:7). And he stated even more clearly: “People who are interested only in unspiritual things can never be pleasing to God. Your interests, however, are not in the unspiritual, but in the spiritual” (Rom 8:8-9).

Around the same time as the aforementioned papal letter, yet another papal decretal (Dominus inter) of uncertain authorship also upholds clerical celibacy:

Here is what has been decided, first of all, with regard to bishops, priests, and deacons: those who have the responsibility of the divine sacrifice, and whose hands give the grace of baptism and consecrate the Body of Christ, are ordered by divine Scripture, and not only ourselves, to be very chaste; the Fathers themselves had ordered them to observe bodily continence. Let us not omit this point but explain the reason for it: how would a bishop or a priest dare preach continence and integrity to a widow or a virgin, or yet [how would he dare] exhort [spouses] to the chastity of the conjugal bed, if he himself is more concerned about begetting children for the world than begetting them for God? This is why we read in Scripture regarding these three ranks that the ministers of God are under obligation to observe purity; it is obvious that this is always a necessity for them; they must either give baptism or offer the sacrifice. Would an impure man dare soul what is holy when holy things are for holy people? It was thus that [the priests of the Old Testament] who offered sacrifices in the temple rightly stayed there without going out during the entire year they were on duty and had nothing to do with their homes. As to the idolaters, when they dedicate themselves to their impieties and immolate [sacrifices] to the demons, they impose on themselves continence with regard to women and also endeavor to keep themselves pure from [certain] foods; and you would ask me if the priest of the living God, who must offer spiritual sacrifices, must be constantly purified, if he must, in his whole flesh, be concerned about flesh? If commixture is defiling, it is obvious that the priest must be ready to carry out his celestial functions–he who has to supplicate on behalf of the sins of others–so that he himself not be found impure. If the lay people are told, “Leave yourselves free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5), these men who put themselves first at the service of human procreation might have the title of priests, but they cannot have that dignity….

St. John Chrysostom in his Homilies on First Timothy (392-397) addresses head on the apparent contradiction between St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy:

If then he who is married cares for the things of the world (1 Corinthians 7:33), and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say “the husband of one wife”? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none (1 Corinthians 7:29). For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage.

Thus, while it is possible for the bishop to be as he ought to be even with a wife (removed from cares of the world and continent), a wife and children make this possibility very difficult and rare for the average human being in the clerical service of God to achieve.

Canons 3 and 4 of the Council of Carthage (419) upheld clerical continence:

Aurelius the bishop said: When at the past council the matter on continency and chastity was considered, those three grades, which by a sort of bond are joined to chastity by their consecration, to wit bishops, presbyters, and deacons, so it seemed that it was becoming that the sacred rulers and priests of God as well as the Levites, or those who served at the divine sacraments, should be continent altogether, by which they would be able with singleness of heart to ask what they sought from the Lord: so that what the apostles taught and antiquity kept, that we might also keep.

Faustinus, the bishop of the Potentine Church, in the province of Picenum, a legate of the Roman Church, said: It seems good that a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon, or whoever perform the sacraments, should be keepers of modesty and should abstain from their wives.

By all the bishops it was said: It is right that all who serve the altar should keep pudicity from all women.

By the time of Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), the law of continency (no sexual relations whatsoever) for clerics was generally recognized in the West. Pope Leo sent a letter to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, answering his question specifically about whether clergy may have sex with their wives:

The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar as for bishops and priests, who when they were laymen or readers, could lawfully marry and have offspring.  But when they reached to the said ranks, what was before lawful ceased to be so.  And hence, in order that their wedlock may become spiritual instead of carnal, it behooves them not to put away their wives but to “have them as though they had them not” (1 Cor 7:29), whereby both the affection of their wives may be retained and the marriage functions cease.

The Council of Agde/Agatha in Gaul (506) prohibited subdeacons from from marrying.

The Council of Girona (517) allowed allows the wife of a cleric to live with her husband on the condition that she live with him as a sister with her brother (i.e. no sex).

The Code of Justinian (529-534) stipulated that a man must “neither have, nor have had, a wife or concubine; and have had no legitimate or natural children” in order to become a bishop.

Canon 22 of the Council of Clermont (535) reads:

When men are called to the sublime dignity of the priesthood and of the diaconate, let them totally repudiate the works of the world; chosen for the sacred mysteries, let them renounce carnal relations and change into fraternal affection the sexual intimacy they had had until then [with their wives]. And let every priest or deacon, after having, by God’s grace, received the [Levitical] blessing, immediately become the brother of his former wife. We have learned that some, aflame with the ardor of their passion, rejected the cincture of the [priestly] militia and returned to their vomit; they resumed conjugal life that was forbidden to them, and through an incest of sorts, brought prejudice against the splendor of priestly dignity, to such an extent that they even sired children. If someone has publicly committed this kind [of offense], let him be deprived forever from his dignity; he had [in any case] lost it when he had agreed [to commit] his offense.

Canon 2 of the third national council at Orleans (538) reads:

No cleric, from the subdiaconate upward, is entitled to take a wife into the new life he has chosen. If it happens that he already has one, he will not have relations with her anymore. Should he do so, he would be deposed of his functions, in conformity with the regulations of old canons, and would have to be content with lay communion.

The second Council of Tours (567) decreed that any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state. According to Canon 14, the wife of a bishop was not to live with him in the same house.

The Council of Trullo (692) made celibacy a requirement for the bishop but rebelled against the primacy of Rome with laxer requirements for priests and deacons.

There are so many different councils reiterating the obligation of clerical continence more or less (Council of Macon, Council of Auxerre, etc.).

For Further Reading:

Priestly Celibacy (very well done paper online)

Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and Church History (Vatican website document)

Apostolic Origins of Clerical Celibacy

Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West

The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development & Theological Foundations

But those who lean on the excuse of an illicit privilege by asserting that this was conceded to them in the old law, let them know that they have been expelled by the authority of the apostolic see from every ecclesiastical office, which they used unworthily, nor can they ever touch the mysteries which ought to be venerated, of which they deprived themselves when they were obsessed with obscene desires.

Posted in Catholicism, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology, Uncategorized, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

The Error of the Supremacy of Private Judgment of Scripture (Cardinal Newman’s Analysis)

Posted by Tony Listi on December 15, 2009

[From: Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church (Via Media, Volume I), 1837, Lecture Six, from Newman’s Anglican period]

Private Judgment is a weapon which destroys error by the sacrifice of truth….

In the next place, let us consider what force prepossessions have in disqualifying us from searching Scripture dispassionately for ourselves. The multitude of men are hindered from forming their own views of doctrine, not only from the peculiar structure of the sacred Volume, but from the external bias which they ever receive from education and other causes. Without proving the influence of prejudice, which would be superfluous, let us consider some of the effects of it. For instance; one man sees the doctrine of absolute predestination in Scripture so clearly, as he considers, that he makes it almost an article of saving faith; another thinks it a most dangerous error. One man maintains, that the civil establishment of religion is commanded in Scripture, another that it is condemned by it. One man sees in Scripture the three evangelical Councils, another thinks them a device of the evil one. Such instances do not show that Scripture has no one certain meaning, but that it is not so distinct and prominent, as to force itself upon the minds of the many against their various prejudices. Nor do they prove that all prejudice is wrong; but that some particular prejudices are not true; and that, since it is impossible to be without some or other, it is expedient to impress the mind with that which is true; that is, with the faith taught by the Church Catholic, and ascertainable as matter of fact beyond the influence of prejudice.

Again: take the explanations in detail given by Protestants of particular texts of Scripture; they will be found to involve an inconsistency and want of intelligible principle, which shows how impossible it is for the mass of men to contemplate Scripture without imparting to it the colouring which they themselves have received in the course of their education. Nothing is more striking, in popular interpretations and discussions, than the amplitude of meaning which is sometimes allowed to the sacred text, compared with its assumed narrowness at other times. In some places it is liberally opened, at others it is kept close shut; sometimes a single word is developed into an argument, at another it is denied to mean anything specific and definite, anything but what is accidental and transient. At times the commentator is sensitively alive to the most distant allusions, at times he is impenetrable to any; at times he decides that the sacred text is figurative, at other times only literal;—without any assignable reason except that the particular religious persuasion to which he belongs requires such inconsistency. For instance, when Christ said to the Apostles, “Drink ye all of this,” He is considered to imply that all the laity should partake the cup: yet, when He said to them, “I am with you always,” He spoke to the original Apostles, exclusively of their successors in the ministry. When St. Paul speaks of “the man of sin,” he meant a succession of sinners; but when Christ said, “I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” He does not mean a line of Peters. When St. Paul says of the Old Testament, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” he includes the New; yet when he says, “We are come to the city of the Living God,” he does not include the Church militant. “A fountain shall be opened for sin,” does not prove baptismal grace; but “Christ is unto us righteousness,” proves that He fulfils the law instead of us. “The fire must prove every man’s work,” is said to be a figure; yet, “Let no man judge you in meats and drinks,” is to be taken to the letter as an argument against fasting. “Do this in remembrance of Me,” is to be understood as a command; but, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” is not a command. “Let no man judge you in respect of a holyday, or of the Sabbath-days,” is an argument, not indeed against the Sabbath, but certainly against holydays. “Search the Scriptures,” is an argument for Scripture being the rule of faith; but “hold the Traditions,” is no argument in favour of Tradition. “Forbidding to marry” is a proof that Rome is Antichrist; but, “It is good for a man not to marry,” is no argument in favour of celibacy. The Sermon on the Mount contains no direction for Protestants to fast; but the second Commandment is plainly against Image Worship. The Romanist in using prayers in an unknown tongue is guilty of disobeying St. Paul; but the Protestant, in teaching justification by faith only, is not guilty of at once garbling St. Paul and contradicting St. James….

I am but showing the extreme inconsistency which is found in the popular mode of interpreting Scripture;—men profess to explain Scripture by itself and by reason, yet go by no rule, nor can give any account of their mode of proceeding. They take the most difficult points for granted, and say they go by common sense when they really go by prejudice. Doubtless Scripture is sometimes literal and sometimes figurative; it need not be literal here, because it is literal there; but, in many cases, the only way of determining when it is one and when the other, is to see how the early Church understood it. This is the Anglo-Catholic principle; we do not profess to judge of Scripture in greater matters by itself, but by means of an external guide. But the popular religion of the day does; and it finds itself unequal to its profession. It rebels against the voice of Antiquity, and becomes the victim of prejudice and a slave to Traditions of men. It interprets Scripture in a spirit of caprice, which might be made, and is made by others, to prove Romanism quite as well. And from all this I infer, not that Scripture has no one meaning in matters of doctrine, or that we do not know it, or that a man of high qualifications may not elicit it, but that the mass of men, if left to themselves, will not possess the faculty of reading it naturally and truly….

It is very observable how a latent prejudice can act in obscuring or rather annihilating certain passages of Scripture in the mental vision, which are ever so prominently presented to the bodily eyes. For instance, a man perhaps is in the habit of reading Scripture for years, and has no impression whatever produced on his mind by such portions of it as speak of God’s free grace, and the need of spiritual aid. These are at length suddenly and forcibly brought home to him; and then perhaps he changes his religious views altogether, and declares that Scripture has hitherto been to him nothing better than a sealed book. What security has he that in certain other respects it is not still hidden from him, as it was heretofore as regards the portions which have now unsettled him? Anglican divines will consider him still dark on certain other points of Scripture doctrine. Or, again, I would ask him what satisfactory sense he puts to our Lord’s words, “Verily, thou shalt in nowise come out thence till thou hast paid the very last farthing”? or, “Stand fast and hold the Traditions”? or, “Let them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord”? and whether a Roman Catholic might not as fairly accuse him of neglecting these texts still, as he at present considers certain other texts, to which he was before blind, the sum and substance of his religion?

Or, to take another and more painful illustration. The (so-called) Unitarians explain away the most explicit texts in behalf of our Lord’s divinity. These texts do not affect them at all. Let us consider how this is. When we come to inquire, we find that they have a preconceived notion in their minds that the substance of the Gospel lies in the doctrine of the Resurrection. This doctrine is their Christianity, their orthodoxy; it contains in it, as they think, the essence of the Revelation. When then they come to the texts in question, such as “Christ, who is over all, God, blessed for ever;” or, “The Word was God;” they have beforehand made up their minds, that, whatever these words mean, they can have no important meaning, because they do not refer to the Resurrection; for that alone they will allow to be important…. They are not confident, they are not careful, about their correctness; they do not mind altering them. They put forward whatever will stop or embarrass their opponent, nothing more. They use some anomalous criticism, or alter the stopping, or amend the text, and all because they have made up their minds already what the Gospel is, that some other doctrine is the whole of it, and that in consequence the question in dispute is very unimportant….

And so, in like manner, many a man insists on the words, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” who will not go on to our Lord’s answer, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.”[T]he mass of Christians bring their prejudices and impressions to the written word, as well as they, and find it easier to judge of the text by the spontaneous operation of habit and inclination, than by the active and independent exercise of their reason; in other words, they think inaccurately; they judge and feel by prejudice….

Scripture is not so distinct in its announcements, as readers are morally or intellectually slow in receiving them. And if any one thinks that this avowal is derogatory to Scripture, I answer that Scripture was never intended to teach doctrine to the many; and if it was not given with this object, it argues no imperfection in it that it does not fulfil it. I repeat it; while Scripture is written by inspired men, with one and one only view of doctrine in their hearts and thoughts, even the Truth which was from the beginning, yet being written not to instruct in doctrine, but for those who were already instructed in it, not with direct announcements but with intimations and implications of the faith, the qualifications for rightly apprehending it are so rare and high, that a prudent man, to say nothing of piety, will not risk his salvation on the chance of his having them; but will read it with the aid of those subsidiary guides which ever have been supplied as if to meet our need. I would not deny as an abstract proposition that a Christian may gain the whole truth from the Scriptures, but would maintain that the chances are very seriously against a given individual…. Neither would I deny that individuals, whether from height of holiness, clearness of intellectual vision, or the immediate power of the Holy Ghost, have been and are able to penetrate through the sacred text into some portions of the divine system beyond, without external help from tradition, authority of doctors, and theology; though since that help has ever been given, as to the Church, so to the individual, it is difficult to prove that the individual has performed what the Church has never attempted. None, however, it would seem, but a complete and accurately moulded Christian, such as the world has never or scarcely seen, would be able to bring out harmoniously and perspicuously the divine characters in full, which lie hid from mortal eyes within the inspired letter of the revelation. And this, by the way, may be taken as one remarkable test, or at least characteristic of error, in the various denominations of religion which surround us; none of them embraces the whole Bible, none of them is able to interpret the whole, none of them has a key which will revolve through the entire compass of the wards which lie within. Each has its favourite text, and neglects the rest. None can solve the great secret and utter the mystery of its pages. One makes trial, then another: but one and all in turn are foiled. They retire, as the sages of Babylon, and make way for Daniel. The Church Catholic, the true Prophet of God, alone is able to tell the dream and its interpretation.

Posted in Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »