2020-10-15T12:01:36-04:00

Last updated on: October 15, 2020 at 12:01 pm   By

Protestant apologist Jason Engwer (words in blue below) recently wrote:

It’s common to allege that the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon we have today doesn’t first appear in the historical record until around the middle of the fourth century, in Athanasius. But it probably was advocated in multiple locations prior to that time, including in Origen more than a century earlier. (10-14-20)

He links to an 11-year-old paper of his where he fleshes this out:

The earliest extant source I’m aware of who advocates that twenty-seven-book canon is Origen, more than a century before Athanasius. . . . Near the end of his life, Origen commented:

our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he who said: ‘I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,’ and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers. (Homilies On Joshua, 7:1 . . .)

This passage is controversial. The scholarly reactions to it are diverse. Bruce Metzger argues that the passage is genuine and seems to refer to our twenty-seven-book canon . . ., which is the position I hold. . . . 

I conclude, then, that Origen is the earliest extant source to advocate the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon. But even if it would be argued that he held a twenty-five-book or twenty-six-book canon instead, the similarity to our canon would be highly significant. (5-4-09)

What Jason curiously neglects to note is that a deficient canon is not only a list with less books than the 27 New Testament books all Christians now accept; it also includes lists with more books than the 27. This was the beauty of St. Athanasius in 367 (the very thing Jason is trying to dispute). He not only listed the present 27 books, but did not hold that any other books were also scriptural.

Jason argues that Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) was the first to present all 27 and no other additional ones (114 years before Athanasius undoubtedly did so), since Jason says he was “the earliest extant source to advocate the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon.”

But Jason did what so many Protestants who argue from the Church fathers unfortunately do: he selectively presented patristic evidence that backs him up and ignored other evidence that does not. This won’t do (needless to say). Jason neglected to tell his readers which non-canonical books Origen also thought were Scripture:  the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas. So he could hardly have accepted a 27-book canon if he accepted these, now, could he?

Origen often referred to the Shepherd of Hermas, and late in his life (around 244-246), he referred to it as “a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired”  (Comm. in Rom. 10.31). He appeared to accept the canonicity of the Epistle of Barnabas in his Contra Celsus: one of the three times he cited it:

[H]e seems, in order to bring an accusation against Christianity, to believe the Gospel accounts only where he pleases, and to express his disbelief of them, in order that he may not be forced to admit the manifestations of Divinity related in these same books; whereas one who sees the spirit of truth by which the writers are influenced, ought, from their narration of things of inferior importance, to believe also the account of divine things. Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded that Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers. And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man. (I, 63; also written late in his life, in 248)

Many scholars also think that Origen regarded the Didache as inspired and canonical. Lee Martin McDonald, in his book, The Formation of the Biblical Canon: Volume 2: The New Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017), stated:

Origen also refers to the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Didache, possibly or apparently acknowledging them as Scripture. . . . If one claims that Origen acknowledged James and Jude as canon because he made use of them, then the same could also be said for Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. (p. 83)

In a related article written on 30 May 2009, Jason shows that he is aware of two of these three books: “The Shepherd Of Hermas and The Epistle Of Barnabas weren’t as popular as is often suggested.” Nor does he mention Origen at all in the article. “Out of sight, out of mind” is, I guess, Jason’s philosophy, when he runs across anomalies that don’t fit into his preconceived notions. He discusses all three of these books in another paper on the New Testament canon (dated 5-7-09), but again never informs his readers that Origen thought they were canonical Scripture, even though he is mentioned three times. Instead, he reiterates:  

Athanasius’ twenty-seven-book New Testament was held by some of his contemporaries and by some before his time. Origen is the earliest source I’m aware of who advocates the twenty-seven-book canon in the records extant to us. Though Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 from the middle of the fourth century is often cited as the first reference to the twenty-seven-book canon, the evidence suggests that it was advocated at least more than a century earlier. 

It’s not at all certain that Origen even accepted all 27 New Testament books (later decreed as such in the late 4th and early 5th centuries by the Catholic Church, along with the Old Testament, including the Deuterocanon). He never cited 2 Peter, and Eusebius records him as stating:

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’ (Matt. 16:18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is doubtful. (Church History, 6.25.8)

He also never cited 2 or 3 John, and wrote:

He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, . . . (Ibid., 6.25.10)

On the other hand Origen did cite the Gospel of Peter (Comm. in Matt. 10.17) and the Gospel of the Hebrews (e.g., Comm. in John 2.12; Comm. in Matt. 16.12), sometimes adding a phrase like “if any one receives it” (Hom. in Jeremiah 15.4; Comm. in Matt. 15.14). He cited the Preaching of Peter twice (Comm. in John 13.17; De Princ. praef. 8), the Acts of Paul twice (De Principiis, 12.3; Comm. in John 20.12), and 1 Clement four times.

It’s far worse, from the minority anti-Catholic position within Protestantism, for one to hold that a non-biblical book is inspired, than for Catholics to hold to authoritative tradition, which is not inspired.

For much of the above data, I drew from Glenn Davis’ superb overview, “The Development of the Canon of the New Testament”: Origen.

I think Jason’s readers are entitled to know these relevant facts, in light of his claims that Origen got the 27 New Testament books right.

As we would expect, while there was a broad consensus as to which books belonged in the New Testament in the first four centuries, still there was enough disagreement, and the inclusion of non-canonical books, to make a Church proclamation necessary. The books were not self-attesting or “perspicuous” enough for the Bible itself to accomplish the task of determining the canon.

***

Related Reading

The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes [1996]

Dialogue on Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon) (vs. Jason Engwer) [2-26-02]

Development of the Biblical Canon: Protestant Difficulties [2-26-02 and 3-19-02, abridged with slight revisions and additions on 7-19-18]

Are All Bible Books Self-Evidently Inspired? [6-19-06]

Are All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Canonical? [6-22-06]

25 Brief Arguments on the Biblical Canon & Protestantism [2009]

Catholic Development of Doctrine: A Defense (vs. Jason Engwer; Emphasis on the Canon of the Bible & Church Infallibility) (+ Pt. II / Pt. III / Pt. IV) [1-15-10]

Biblical Canon vs. Protestant Sola Scriptura [6-5-10]

Bible: Completely Self-Authenticating, So that Anyone Could Come up with the Complete Canon without Formal Church Proclamations? (vs. Wm. Whitaker) [July 2012]

Church Authority & the Canon (vs. Calvin #59) [2012]

Conundrum! Scripture Alone Cannot Establish the Biblical Canon [National Catholic Register, 5-16-17]

The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine [National Catholic Register, 1-22-18]

Is Inspiration Immediately Evident in Every Biblical Book? [National Catholic Register, 7-28-18]

Vs. James White #10: Arbitrary Tradition Re the Canon [11-14-19]

***

Photo credit: Imaginative portrayal of Origen from Les Vrais Portraits Et Vies Des Hommes Illustres by André Thévet (1516-1590) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2020-08-16T09:20:31-04:00

Last updated on: August 16, 2020 at 9:20 am   By

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer wrote the post, “Early Ignorance Of The Assumption Of Mary” (8-15-20). His words will be in blue below. Then I will make two arguments from analogy.

*****

Today is the Feast of the Assumption, commemorating Mary’s alleged bodily assumption to heaven. There’s a significant line of evidence that’s seldom discussed that suggests the early Christians had no concept of an assumption of Mary. Many early patristic sources cite Enoch, Elijah, and Paul as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to heaven, etc., yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example [extensive patristic citations then provided] . . . Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were “assumed” and “translated”, but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5). How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? They’re sometimes describing Christian beliefs in general, not just their own, which makes their failure to mention Mary even more significant. If these early Christians held as high a view of Mary as Roman Catholicism does, or even close to so high a view, you’d expect them to cite her more than anybody else. Instead, they don’t cite her at all.

Many patristic sources highly praise Scripture as God’s Word and provide extensive biblical texts in favor of the Christian doctrines that they defend. But no early patristic source says anything about the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith [as provided by, e.g., James White, Normal Geisler, and Keith Mathison*]. Yet this is the Protestant rule of faith, and entire basis of its self-understood authority. How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it, and believed it? If these early Christians held to sola Scriptura as the rule of faith as present-day Protestants do, or even close to so high a view, you’d expect them to cite its definition quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all.

[* Jason provides a slightly different and more succinct definition of sola Scriptura in a Facebook post from 5-12-20: “Sola scriptura could be explained in summary form by saying that scripture alone is our rule of faith. Or you could expand upon it by saying that scripture is the only special, public revelation that’s extant.”]

No early patristic source provides the complete list of the New Testament biblical canon until St. Athanasius in 367. Yet this is part and parcel of the Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura, [one can’t grant the Bible alone sole infallible authority unless one knows exactly what it is] and entire basis of its self-understood authority. How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain [prior to 367] from mentioning the exact parameters of the canon of the New Testament, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it? If these early Christians held to the 27-book New Testament canon, as present-day Protestants do, or even close to such a view, you’d expect them to mention this quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all. And several of these fathers included books in the New Testament canon that no Christian today includes.

I made further such analogical arguments in a long article explaining my conversion to Catholicism, citing Cardinal Newman and his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:

Newman proceeded to make brilliant specific analogies in order to bring home his point. The first had to do with the doctrine of purgatory, vis-a-vis the doctrine of original sin, which is, of course, accepted by Protestants as well:
*

Some notion of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed, or other vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory, has in its favour almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church. (16)

Newman then recounts no less than sixteen Fathers who hold the view in some form. But in comparing this consensus to the doctrine of original sin, we find a disjunction:
*

No one will say that there is a testimony of the Fathers, equally strong, for the doctrine of Original Sin. (17) In spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles’ nor the Nicene Creed. (18)

This is a crucial distinction. It is a serious problem for Protestantism that it by and large inconsistently rejects doctrines which have a consensus in the early Church, such as purgatory, the (still developing) papacy, bishops, the Real Presence, regenerative infant baptism, apostolic succession, and intercession of the saints, while accepting others with far less explicit early sanction, such as original sin. Even many of their own foundational and distinctive doctrines, such as the notion of Faith Alone (sola fide), or imputed, extrinsic, forensic justification, are well-nigh nonexistent all through Church history until Luther’s arrival on the scene, as, for example, prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler recently freely admitted:
*

[T]hese valuable insights into the doctrine of justification had been largely lost throughout much of Christian history, and it was the Reformers who recovered this biblical truth . . .During the patristic, and especially the later medieval periods, forensic justification was largely lost . . . Still, the theological formulations of such figures as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas did not preclude a rediscovery of this judicial element in the Pauline doctrine of justification . . .

[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! (19)

On the other hand, Protestants clearly accept developing doctrine on several fronts: the Canon of the New Testament is a clear example of such a (technically “non-biblical”) doctrine It wasn’t finalized until 397 A.D. The divinity of Christ was dogmatically proclaimed only at the “late” date of 325, the fully worked-out doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 381, and the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) in 451, all in Ecumenical Councils which are accepted by most Protestants. So development is an unavoidable fact for both Protestants and Catholics.

*

The trick for Protestants (granting Church history an important and legitimate role, whether it is considered normative and authoritative or not), is to determine a non-arbitrary rationale for accepting some doctrines while rejecting others. It will not do to simply say that certain doctrines are “unbiblical” and thus unworthy of Protestant allegiance, since it must immediately be explained why the majority of early Christians believed in them, and why beliefs such as the Canon of the New Testament and Scripture Alone are adopted despite the absence of biblical rationale, or why (chances are) many other strands of Protestantism disagree with the one making the claim, when Scripture is allegedly so “clear” and able to be interpreted in the main without difficulty by the layman.
*
Newman writes, regarding the New Testament Canon:
*

As regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the same books as canonical and inspired; yet . . . the degrees of evidence are very various for one book and another . . . For instance, as to the Epistle of St. James . . . Origen, in the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it among the Greeks and it is not quoted by name by any Latin till the fourth . . . Again: The Epistle to the Hebrews, though received in the East, was not received in the Latin Churches till St. Jerome’s time . . . Again, St. Jerome tells us, that in his day, towards A.D. 400, the Greek Church rejected the Apocalypse, but the Latin received it. Again: The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books . . . Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John’s death, in which number are the Acts, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and James. Of the other thirteen, five, viz. St. John’s Gospel, Philippians, 1st Timothy, Hebrews, and 1st John, are quoted but by one writer during the same period. On what ground, then, do we receive the Canon as it comes to us, but on the authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? . . . The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it. (20)

FOOTNOTES

16. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: edition published by the University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, with a foreword by Ian Ker, from the 1878 edition of the original work of 1845; p. 21.
17. Ibid., p. 21.
18. Ibid., p. 23.
19. Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995,  pp. 247-248, 503.
20. Newman, Essay, pp. 123-126.

In another paper of mine, I deal with many such instances of Protestant distinctives (as well as both Protestant and Catholic terminology) that never appear in the Bible:

[T]he New Testament never mentions an “altar call”. It never has the typical “sinner’s prayer” of evangelicals. It doesn’t mention church buildings. It never uses the word “Trinity.” It never uses the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of “personal relationship with Jesus.” . . . 

Other beliefs or practices not explicitly mentioned in the Bible are Bible studies, separating young people during church services, and grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), “asking Jesus into one’s heart,” a “body of believers,” Scripture interpreting Scripture (the more clear helping to understand the less clear), agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines and permitted relativism regarding “non-essential” or “secondary” doctrines, denominations (vs. the biblical “one Church”). Of course, this very idea that one must find explicit biblical proof for every doctrine or it can’t / mustn’t be believed (even with high selectivity or rank inconsistency) is not found in the Bible anywhere, either. It’s (irony of all ironies!) a mere tradition of men.

Some popular Protestant (and also often Catholic) words or phrases  that do not appear in the Bible are rapture, invisible church, incarnation, virgin birth, holy communion, Lord’s prayer, Bible, original sin, fall of man, theology, go[ing] to church, grace alone, [total] depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, spirituality, Scripture alone, pray for guidance, pray for direction, spiritual warfare, and sin nature. Faith alone only appears once:

James 2:24 [RSV] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Protestants manage to believe all these things (or use these words) with no problem whatever. Why? Or, more specifically, why do they believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics misery for similar things, or else doctrines and practices with far more indication of various sorts than the things above, that Protestants accept? Why the double standard? Or is it just that the Protestants who sling these sorts of “arguments” about never think about them very deeply, or have never met a Catholic who can show that they are very weak arguments indeed?

That noted, I provide many articles that deal with the question of the alleged total “absence” of the Assumption of Mary from Holy Scripture. Again, I reiterate that there is more about Mary’s Assumption in Scripture than there is about the biblical canon and the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura: that is, nothing at all in both cases; zip, zero, zilch.

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

***

I don’t think the Assumption is biblically implausible in the least. All it’s saying is that Mary received her resurrected body first among the saints (all of whom will eventually do the same thing). The mother of Jesus our Lord and Savior didn’t have to undergo the decay of death.

The dogma doesn’t even require us to believe that she didn’t die (and I personally believe that she did, and this seems to be the consensus position). What in the world is implausible or objectionable about that? It’s not explicit in the Bible, but neither are many doctrines (as I argued and explained in many ways above), so that is not a “dealbreaker” at all.

***

I posted notice of this reply on Triablogue, where Jason’s article was posted, but I am banned there, so it was deleted. Then I went over to his Facebook page and let him know I wrote it (which in most circles is regarded as rudimentary courtesy), along with a notice of my previous reply to one of his papers and mention of nine such replies  altogether since May. Here was his reply there:

Dave Armstrong posted a couple of links here. I’ve deleted both. One wasn’t relevant to the thread, and the other article links some posts he wrote on the assumption of Mary, but doesn’t interact with my argument . . . He does respond to some views held by Protestants on everything from the canon of scripture to imputed righteousness to altar calls to whether grape juice should be used in communion. Some of the beliefs he brings up are ones that I don’t hold, which makes his discussion even more irrelevant to my position.

Do you not want to be informed anymore when I respond to one of your articles? That’s what the second one was. I would say it is Christian courtesy. Many Protestants have a very dim understanding of how analogical argument works. I’m truly surprised that you are among them.

You’ve sometimes informed me when you’ve written a response to me and sometimes haven’t. Lately, until today, you had been sending me emails, but you posted a link in a Facebook thread on another topic this time. You don’t need to inform me when you write a response. 

I won’t bother anymore, then. Thanks for clarifying.

[Gene Bridges: an anti-Catholic polemicist I hadn’t heard from in a long time, then chimed in]

Still incapable of making a biblical argument for the Assumption of Mary, I see.

Of course, in the paper I linked to no less than nine papers regarding the Assumption and the Bible. I have always said there wasn’t much in the Bible about it (though there is some), but no biggie. The Bible never claims that this is a requirement, and sola Scriptura is completely absent from it, as is the canon, and almost (excepting just a very few passages), also the virgin birth and original sin.

Glad to hear you are still alive!

In other words, there is no biblical foundation for your heresy that doesn’t require supplemental material from you. I hope your sins find you out. You really are a second rate [sic]. May the efficacy of your baptism not be recognized in heaven. Seriously, you are admitting to working with an arbitrary epistemic warrant now. Well done! May Steve Hays [recently deceased colleague of his] laugh when you are in the judgment. Psalm 2 says God mocks His enemies. You know that, right?

You are a rare specimen of saintly Christian love, Gene.

All I hear when you write is false piety. Loving your enemies does not require irenic behavior. The Bible is full of taunt songs directed at people like you.

All I hear when you write is the loveless, blind Pharisees. 

I am not the one putting traditions of men over the Scriptures themselves like the Pharisees. You are the Pharisee here. 9 papers full of unbiblical Rigamorole to justify heresy. All I hear is witchcraft when you speak, Hymaneus Alexander ben apostasy ben heresy ben Revelation 17 ben dry bones ben picayune.

You always were a very colorful writer. Thanks for the entertainment.

You were always a hypocrite and heretic. This is hilarious. It’s been over a decade, and all I have to do to mock you is goad you into a reply.

The Lord is laughing at you, having seen this day coming. It won’t be long until Kim Jong Un here goes on another angry rant. Maybe he will sit down and churn out some Rigamorole to add to his grimoire – I mean apologetics page.

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (RSV) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, [2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. [3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Matthew 5:11-12 “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Thanks for the abundant blessings, Gene! May God bless you with all good things, and open your eyes. He will, if you allow Him to.

***

Photo credit: St. John Henry Cardinal Newman in 1879 [public domain]

***

2020-04-29T15:01:32-04:00

Last updated on: April 29, 2020 at 3:01 pm   By

It was held by Pharisees in the time of Jesus.

In the Babylonian Talmud, translated by Michael L. Rodkinson (1918), one reads at Tractate Rosh Hashana Chapter 1, pp. 26-27:

We have learned in a Boraitha: The school of Shammai said: There are three divisions of mankind at the Resurrection: the wholly righteous, the utterly wicked, and the average class. The wholly righteous are at once inscribed, and life is decreed for them; the utterly wicked are at once inscribed, and destined for Gehenna, as we read [Dan. 12:2]: “And many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

The third class, the men between the former two, descend to Gehenna, but they weep and come up again, in accordance with the passage [Zech. 13: 9]: “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; and they shall call on My name, and I will answer them.”

Concerning this last class of men Hannah says [I Sam. 2: 6]: “The Lord causeth to die and maketh alive, He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up again.” The school of Hillel says: The Merciful One inclines (the scale of justice) to the side of mercy, and of this third class of men David says [Psalms, 114:1]: “It is lovely to me that the Lord heareth my voice”; in fact, David applies to them the Psalm mentioned down to the words, “Thou hast delivered my soul from death” [ibid. 8].

Likewise, one may find in the Tosefta Sanhedrin, 13:3, a rabbinic supplement to the Talmud, the following:

In the House of Shammai it was said: There are three groups: One is destined to eternal life, and another is consigned to ignominy and eternal abhorrence- they are the thoroughly wicked, the average among them will go down to hell, and dive and come up and arise thence and be healed . . . In the House of Hillel it was said: “[God is] rich in kindness (Exodus 34;6)”- would incline the balance to the side of mercy.”

This passage from the Talmud and the corresponding supplement proves that the Pharisees believed in the concept of Purgatory. In fact, most Jews (aside from the Sadducees) living in the two centuries leading up to Christ’s birth believed in something akin to Purgatory or the concept of a divine punishment that is regenerative, not vindictive.

Why is this important? This is important because we see St. Paul, a student of Gamaliel who was a Shammaite (as per Jacob Neusner in The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70), using Zechariah 13:9 in the same manner in 1 Cor. 3:10-17 as the School of Shammai did above.

In addition to 1 Corinthians 15:29 that you cited to in your book, The Catholic Verses (which I highly recommend to all of your readers, by the way) there is another verse in St. Paul’s writing that alludes to purgatory:

2 Corinthians 12:1-4 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven. And I know that this person (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable things, which no one may utter.

Here, St. Paul references two places–the third heaven and Paradise. The Pharisees during intertestamental times believed that there were several levels of heavens, seven in all, each having a distinct purpose. Third heaven and Paradise were just two of those levels. Along with this heavenly scheme, they also believed that were also seven levels of the abode of the dead. Purgatory one of those levels. Compare. Philippians 2:10. Dante didn’t just make up the notion of levels of heaven, hell and purgatory in his Divine Comedy.

[added later, on 2-17-17: To my knowledge, only the Sadducees did not believe in purgatorial state. The Pharisees did, the Essenes did, later scriptures such as Maccabees and Daniel and Wisdom demonstrate such a belief, not to mention intertestamental writings like the Testament of Abraham and the Book of Enoch. The Kaddish prayer that dates back to that time is specifically a prayer for the dead. In my mind, given the widespread belief in a purgatorial state, if Jesus did not believe in it, He would have explicitly taught against it.

Related Reading

Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory [1995]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

A Biblical Argument for Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26) [10-13-04]

Is Purgatory a “Place” or a “Condition”?: Misconceptions From [Eastern Orthodox] Fr. Ambrose About My Opinion (and the Church’s View) / Also: Development and Alleged Historical Revisionism [7-24-05]

Purgatory: Refutation of James White (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) [3-3-07]

Luther: Purgatory “Quite Plain” in 2 Maccabees [3-5-09]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

John Wesley’s Belief in an Intermediate State After Death [7-13-09]

Purgatory: My Biblical Defense of its Doctrinal Development [9-20-11]

John Wesley’s View of Purgatory and Analogous Processes [2013]

Dialogue: Raising of Tabitha from the Dead & Purgatory [March 2015]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32) [2-17-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43) [2-17-17]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Purgatory & Prayer for the Dead [6-22-10; rev. 10-8-19]

Does Time & Place Apply to Purgatory? (vs. James White) [11-6-19]

Raising of Tabitha: Proof of Purgatory (Tony Gerring) [3-20-15]

***

(originally posted on my blog on 9-20-11)

Photo credit: Saint Teresa of Ávila Interceding for Souls in Purgatory, by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Picryl]

***

2020-04-25T13:31:37-04:00

Last updated on: April 25, 2020 at 1:31 pm   By

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

It’s the fact that Paul is an apostle (and the apostle, according to Protestants) and he is saying, “I have this tradition that I have passed on to you, both in writing and orally. Keep it.” That’s not sola Scriptura, any way you look at it.

So the Protestant who defends Protestantism against us “unbiblical” Catholics will retort: “well, whatever God wanted to be binding He made sure would be inscripturated.” In fact, a guy who goes by “excatholic4christ” made pretty much exactly this unbiblical argument, just yesterday:

It’s true that the Lord Jesus did not commit His teachings to writing during His earthly ministry. He communicated His teachings orally to His apostles and disciples. The apostles and disciples then committed the Gospel accounts of Christ’s ministry and His teachings to writing through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit over a span of about forty years, beginning in the late 40s or early 50s and ending in the early 90s. The infant church absolutely depended on the oral teachings of Paul and the other apostles, but as the inspired Gospels and apostolic epistles were written and circulated throughout the church, apostolic oral teaching ended with the deaths of the apostles. God’s Word is the sole authority for Christians and all that we need.

But this argument is self-defeating, because the notion of “inscripturation” is not found anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, it’s merely an extrabiblical tradition of men, which is precisely the thing that the Protestant is excluding by his guiding principle of sola Scriptura.

So it’s a vicious logical circle. You can’t appeal to tradition in order to uphold Scripture Alone. By definition and category distinctions, you must appeal only to Scripture to uphold the notion that only biblical teachings are binding and infallible. If you appeal to a non-biblical tradition to do that, then you are forced to redefine your rule of faith and it’s no longer sola Scriptura as we know and love it.

One can quibble about exactly what teachings Paul was passing along (and which ones he was not), but it’s beyond doubt that he was passing them along, and not by the method of sola Scriptura.

The latter is the Protestant rule of faith or authority, and Paul clearly ain’t following it. He must have flunked out of the Protestant seminary.

***

Related Reading

Dialogue on “Tradition” in the New Testament (vs. Dr. Eric Svendsen) [1996]

Dialogue on “Perspicuous Apostolic Teaching” (vs. James White) [May-June 1996]

“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word [late 90s; rev. 8-16-16]

“Moses’ Seat” & Jesus vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. James White) [12-27-03]

Binding, Authoritative Tradition According to St. Paul [2004]

James White’s Critique of My Book, The Catholic Verses: Part I: The Binding Authority of Tradition [12-30-04]

Biblical Evidence for True Apostolic Tradition (vs. “Traditions of Men”) [6-23-11]

Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition + Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah [10-18-11]

2020-04-11T09:46:35-04:00

Last updated on: April 11, 2020 at 9:46 am   By
Jesus is both God and Man. He has a human nature and a Divine Nature. The human nature could be subject to time. He was born in history, was killed on a certain date, etc.

But God, by nature, is eternal and outside of time, so in His Divine Nature, the crucifixion is timeless and ongoing. That’s why we can speak of His death as both historical and ongoing, and how the Sacrifice of the Mass can occur now as a present reality. And it is why, after His resurrection and ascension, the apostle John could still refer to Him as follows:

Revelation 5:6 (RSV) And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, . . .

Many Protestants (particularly Calvinists) appear to minimize the Divine Nature element of the crucifixion, and so they deny that Jesus could be present at the Mass because now He is up in heaven. This is almost akin to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism (that separated the two natures of Jesus too greatly; almost making Him two persons).

Well, if we ignore the fact that He is also God as well as man, we come up with that, but for a God Who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and beyond time (and Jesus is God and has all those qualities in His Divine Nature), the miracle of the Sacrifice of the Mass is entirely plausible, possible, and biblically sanctioned. The following passage seems to suggest a sort of transcendence of time in this regard:

1 Peter 1:18-20 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, [19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. [20] He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.

What God decrees or ordains or predestines, He does from all eternity (outside of time altogether). All Christians are pretty much agreed on that. Therefore, the crucifixion (an event ordained from eternity and directed towards the God-Man Who willingly sacrificed Himself), has the same characteristics. It has a timeless element, as both a decree from God (the Father) and an act of God (the Son). God died on the cross. Hence the following passage (again, appropriately, from St. Peter, the first pope), where we clearly observe the intersection of God’s timeless plan and foreordination, and human history and actions:

Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

I believe this thought is orthodox, with nothing objectionable. But I’m sure it’s not new. Everything in Catholicism has always been thought of before by someone.

***

Related Reading

Sacrifice of the Mass & Hebrews 8 (vs. James White) [3-31-04]

Passover in Judaism & a Mass that Transcends Time (“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture) [7-7-09]

Sacrifice of the Mass and NT Altars (vs. Calvin #49) [12-9-09]

Mass: Re-Sacrifice? (vs. Lutheran Pastor Ken Howes) [4-2-12]

Catholic Mass: “Re-Sacrifice” of Jesus? [11-19-15]

Was the Apostle Paul a Priest? [National Catholic Register, 4-2-17]

Is Jesus “Re-Sacrificed” at Every Mass? [National Catholic Register, 8-19-17]

Why is Melchizedek So Important? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-18]

“Re-Presentation” vs. “Re-Sacrifice” in the Mass: Doctrinal History [4-4-18]

Time-Transcending Mass and the Hebrew “Remember” [National Catholic Register, 8-3-18]

***

(originally posted on 9-25-09)

Photo credit: Christ on the Cross (1870), by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2020-02-21T13:12:39-04:00

Last updated on: February 21, 2020 at 1:12 pm   By

From my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (Aug. 2009) [aka “Dave’s Topical Bible“]

[all verses RSV, from my original manuscript (the final book version used KJV) ]

***

Matthew 16:19 . . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . .

Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Matthew 18:18 . . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . .

John 20:23 . . . if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

Romans 16:17 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.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Corinthians 16:22 If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!

2 Corinthians 2:5-11 But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure –not to put it too severely — to you all. For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.  So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 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.

1 Timothy 1:19-20 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1 Timothy 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

2 Timothy 2:16-18 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae’us and Phile’tus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.

2 Timothy 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.

Titus 1:10-11 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.

Titus 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

***

Related Reading

*
Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]
*
*
*
*
*
 *
*
*
***
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
2020-02-21T13:08:39-04:00

Last updated on: February 21, 2020 at 1:08 pm   By

From my book, The One-Minute Apologist: Essential Catholic Replies to Over Sixty Common Protestant Claims (May 2007)

*****

[critical accusation] The early Church denied the canonicity and inspiration of these seven Aprocryphal books, but the Catholic Church added them centuries later.

The One-Minute Apologist Says:

It was Protestantism that removed these “deuterocanonical” books from the Bible many centuries later.  And, contrary to the myth, the early Church did, indeed, accept those books as Scripture.

The seven disputed books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include an additional six chapters (107 verses) in Esther and three chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.

According to major Protestant scholars and historians (see bibliography on the next page), in the first four centuries Church leaders (e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus) generally recognized these seven books as canonical and scriptural, following the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, following the council of Rome (382), and general consensus, finalized the New Testament canon while also including the deuterocanon, in lists that were identical to that of the Council of Trent (1545–1563).

There’s a scholarly consensus that this canon was pretty much accepted from the fourth century to the sixteenth, and indeed, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include the (unseparated) deuterocanonical books.  The Dead Sea Schrolls found at Qumran did not contain Esther, but did contain Tobit.

A Protestant Might Further Object:

Yet, St. Jerome, who was the greatest Bible scholar in the early Church, and author of the Latin Vulgate, didn’t accept these extra books.  We know what books were in the Old Testament from the Jewish synod of Jamnia (c. A.D.90), which excluded the Apocrypha.  The Jews knew very well what books were in their own Bible!

The One-Minute Apologist Says:

According to Douglas and Geisler, Jamnia was not an authoritative council, but simply a gathering of scholars, and similar events occurred afterward. In fact, at Jamnia the canonicity of books such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon was also disputed.  Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not “settle” anything.  The Jews were still arguing about the canonicity of the books mentioned earlier and also Proverbs into the early second century.

And St. Jerome’s sometimes critical views on these books are not as clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402), for example, he wrote:

When I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. (Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, 33)

Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible. (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.)  All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does today.  But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He’s not infallible.  The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus, indeed, part of Holy Scripture.

In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [Athanasius cited Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit].  He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae— ‘as it is written,’ ‘as the scripture says,’ etc. (F. F. Bruce, Protestant Bible scholar)

Bibliography

F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture.

F. L. Cross and E. A.Livingstone, editors, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.

J. D. Douglas, editor, The New Bible Dictionary.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us:  How We Got Our Bible.

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.

James Orr, general editor, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church and Post-Nicene Christianity.

Brooke Foss Westcott,  A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament.

***

Related Reading

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
2020-02-06T14:47:45-04:00

Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 2:47 pm   By

This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).

What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.

*****

Part II, Article V: Chapter 1: The Authority of the Ancient Fathers is Venerable

Theodosius the Elder found no better way of putting down the disputes of his time concerning religious matters than to follow the counsel of Sisinnius, — to bring together the chiefs of the sects, and ask them if they held the ancient Fathers, who had had charge of the Church before all these disputes began, to be honest, holy, good. Catholic and Apostolic men. To which the sectaries answering, yes ; he replied : Let us then examine your doctrine by theirs ; if yours is conformable to it let us retain it, otherwise let us give it up. There is no better plan in the world. Since Calvin and Beza own that the Church continued pure for the first six hundred years, let us see whether your Church is in the same faith and the same doctrine.

And who can better witness to us the faith which the Church followed in those ancient times, than they who then lived with her, at her table ? Who can better describe to us the manners of this heavenly Spouse, in the flower of her age, than those who have had the honour of holding the principal offices about her ? And in this aspect the Fathers deserve that we yield them our faith, not on account of the exquisite doctrine with which they were furnished, but for the uprightness of their consciences, and the fidelity with which they acted in their charges.

One does not so much require knowledge in witnesses as honesty and good faith. We do not want them here as authors of our faith, but as witnesses of the belief in which the Church of their time lived. No one can give more conclusive evidence than those who ruled it : they are beyond reproach in every respect. He who would know what path the Church followed at that time, let him ask those who have most faithfully accompanied her. The wise man will  seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will he occupied in the prophets. He will keep the sayings of renowned men (Ecclus. xxxix. i, 2). Hear what Jeremias says (vi. 16) : Thus saith the Lord : stand ye on the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, which is the good way, and walk ye in it ; and you shall find refreshment for your souls.

And the Wise Man (Ecclus. viii. 11): Let not the discourse of the ancients escape thee, for they have learned of their fathers. And we must not only honour their testimonies as most assured and irreproachable ; but also give great credit to their doctrine, beyond all our inventions and curious searchings. We are not in any doubt as to whether the ancient Fathers should be held as authors of our faith; we know, better than all your ministers do, that they are not. Nor are we disputing whether we must receive as certain, that which one or two of the Fathers may have held as opinions. Our difference is in this : You say you have reformed your church on the pattern of the ancient Church ; we deny it, and take to witness those who have seen it, who have guarded it, who have governed it: — is not this a straightforward proof, and one clear of all quibbling ?

Here we are only maintaining the integrity and good faith of the witnesses. Besides this you say that your Church has been cut, and reformed according to the true understanding of the Scriptures ; we deny it, and say that the ancient Fathers had more competence and learning than you, and yet judged that the meaning of the Scriptures was not such as you make out. Is not this a most certain proof ? You say that according to the Scriptures the Mass ought to be abolished ; all the ancient Fathers deny it. Whom shall we believe — this troop of ancient Bishops and Martyrs, or this band of new-comers ? That is where we stand. Now who does not see at first sight, that it is an unbearable impudence to refuse belief to these myriad Martyrs, Confessors, Doctors, who have preceded us ? And if the faith of that ancient Church ought to serve as a rule of right-believing, we cannot better find this rule than in the writings and depositions of these our most holy and distinguished ancestors.

***

Related Reading:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

Photo credit: St. Francis de Sales [Bosco Austalasia / Salesian Journeying with the young]

***

2020-02-06T13:05:56-04:00

Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 1:05 pm   By

This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).

What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.

*****

Part II, Article IV: Chapter 2: How Holy and Sacred is the Authority of Universal Councils

We are speaking then here of a Council such as that, in which there is the authority of S. Peter, both in the beginning and in the conclusion, and of the other Apostles and pastors who may choose to assist, or if not of all at least of a notable part ; in which discussion is free, that is, in which any one who chooses may declare his mind with regard to the question under discussion ; in which the pastors have the judicial voice. Such, in fact, as those four first were of which S. Gregory made so great account that he made this protestation concerning them : ” I declare that like the four books of the Holy Gospel do I receive and venerate the four Councils.”

Let us then consider a little how strong their authority should be over the understanding of Christians. And see how the Apostles speak of them : It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us [Acts 15:28; Jerusalem Council]. Therefore the authority of councils ought to be revered as resting on the action of the Holy Ghost. For if against that Pharisaic heresy the Holy Ghost, doctor and guide of his Church, assisted the assembly, we must also believe that on all like occasions he will still assist the meetings of pastors, to regulate by their mouth both our actions and our beliefs. It is the same Church, as dear to the heavenly Spouse as she was then, in greater need than she was then, — what reason therefore can there be why he should not give her the same assistance as he gave her then on like occasion ?

Consider, I beg you, the importance of the Gospel words : And if he will not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the heathen and the publican [Mt 18:17]. And when can we hear the Church more distinctly than by the voice of a general Council, where the heads of the Church come together to state and resolve difficulties ? The body speaks not by its legs, nor by its hands, but only by its head, and so, how can the Church better pronounce sentence than by its heads ? But Our Lord explains himself : Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on earth concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. . . . For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them [Mt 18:19-20].

If two or three being gathered together in the name of Our Lord, when need is, have so particular an assistance from him that he is in the midst of them as a general in the midst of his army, as a doctor and regent among his disciples, if the Father infallibly gives them a gracious hearing concerning what they ask, how would he refuse his Holy Spirit to the general assembly of the pastors of the Church ?

Again, if the legitimate assembly of the pastors and heads of the Church could once be surprised by error, how would the word of the Master be verified : The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [Mt 16:18]? How could error and hellish strength more triumphantly seize upon the Church than by having subdued doctors, pastors, and captains, with the general ? And this word : I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world [Mt 28:20] — what would become of it ? And how would the Church be the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15] if its bases and foundations support error and falsehood ? Doctors and pastors are the visible foundations of the Church, on whose ministry the rest is supported.

Finally, what stricter command have we than to take our food from the hand of our pastors ? Does not S. Paul say that the Holy Ghost has placed them over the flock to rule us [Acts 20:28] and that Our Lord has given them to us that we may not he tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine [?] [Eph 4:14]  What respect then must we not pay to the ordinances and canons which emanate from their general assembly ? It is true that taken separately their teachings are subject to correction, but when they are together and when all the ecclesiastical authority is collected into one, who shall dispute the sentence which comes forth ? If the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be preserved ? If the chiefs are blind, who shall lead the others ? If the pillars are falling, who shall hold them up ?

In a word, what has the Church more grand, more certain, more solid, for the overthrow of heresy, than the judgment of General Councils ? The Scripture, — Beza will say. But I have already shown that ” heresy is of the understanding not of the Scripture, the fault lies in the meaning, not in the words.” [St. Hilary of Poitiers] Who knows not how many passages the Arian brought forward ? What was there to be said against him except that he understood them wrongly ? But he is quite right to believe that it is you who interpret wrongly, not he, you that are mistaken, not he ; that his appeal to the analogy of the faith is more sound than yours, so long as they are but private individuals who oppose his novelties. Yes, if one deprive the Councils of supreme authority in decision and declarations necessary for the understanding of the Holy Word, this Holy Word will be as much profaned as texts of Aristotle, and our articles of religion will be subject to never-ending revision, and from being safe and steady Christians we shall become wretched academics.

Athanasius says that ” the word of the Lord by the Ecumenical Council of Nice remains for ever.” S. Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the Apollinarists who boasted of having been recognised by a Catholic council : — ” If either now,” says he, ” or formerly, they have been received, let them prove it and we will agree, for it will be clear that they assent to the right doctrine, and it cannot be otherwise.” S. Augustine says that the celebrated question about Baptism pressed by the Donatists made some Bishops doubt, ” until the whole world in plenary council formulated beyond all doubt what was most wholesomely believed.” ” The decision of the priestly Council (of Nice),” says Rufinus, ” is conveyed to Constantine. He venerates it as settled by God, in such sense that if any one were to oppose it he would be working his own destruction, as opposing himself to God.”

But if any one supposes that because he can produce analogies, texts of Scripture, Greek and Hebrew words, he is therefore allowed to make doubtful again what has already been determined by General Councils, he must bring patents from heaven duly signed and sealed, or else he must admit that anybody else may do as he does, that everything is at the mercy of our rash speculations, that everything is uncertain and subject to the variety of the judgments and considerations of men. The Wise Man gives us other counsel :  The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd. More than these, my son, require not [Ecc 12:11-12].

Part II, Article IV: Chapter 3: How the Ministers Have Despised and Violated the Authority of Councils

Luther in the book which he has composed on the Councils is not content with tearing down the stones that are visible, but goes so far as to sap the very foundations of the Church. Who would credit this of Luther, that great and glorious reformer, as Beza calls him ? How does he treat the great Council of Nice ? Because the Council forbids those who have mutilated themselves to be received into the clerical ministry, and presently again forbids ecclesiastics to keep in their houses other women besides their mothers or their sisters : — ” Pressed on this point,” says Luther, ” I do not allow [the presence of] the Holy Spirit in this Council. And why ? Is there no other work for the Holy Spirit to do in Councils than to bind and burden his ministers by making impossible, dangerous, unnecessary laws ? ” He makes exception for no Council, but seriously holds that the Curé  alone can do as much as a Council. Such is the opinion of this great reformer.

Beza says in the Epistle to the King of France, that your reform will refuse the authority of no Council; so far he speaks well, but what follows spoils all : ” provided,” says he, ” that the Word of God test it.” But, for God’s sake, when will they cease darkening the question ! The Councils, after the fullest consultation, when the test has been made by the holy touchstone of the Word of God, decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their determination is received, will not another also be wanted ? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled ? After the test has been applied by the Council, Beza and his disciples want to try again ? And who shall stop another from asking as much, in order to see if the Council’s test has been properly tried ? And why not a third to know if the second is faithful ? — and then a fourth, to test the third ?

Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of the faith in the wheel of their understandings. We are not hesitating as to whether we should receive a doctrine at haphazard, or should test it by the application of God’s Word. But what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe. Once let the canons of Councils be submitted to the test of private individuals, — as many persons, so many tastes, so many opinions.

The article of the real presence of Our Lord in the most Holy Sacrament had been received under the test of many Councils. Luther wished to make another trial, Zwingle another trial on that of Luther, Brentius another on these, Calvin another, — as many tests so many opinions. But, I beseech you, if the test as applied by a General Council be not enough to settle the minds of men, how shall the authority of some nobody be able to do it ? That is too great an ambition.

Some of the most learned ministers of Lausanne, these late years. Scripture and analogy of faith in hand, oppose the doctrine of Calvin concerning justification. To bear the attack of their arguments no new reasons appear, though some wretched little tracts, insipid and void of doctrine, are set a-going. How are these men treated ? They are persecuted, driven away, threatened. Why is this ? ” Because they teach a doctrine contrary to the profession of faith of our Church.” Gracious heavens ! the doctrine of the Council of Nice, after an approbation of thirteen hundred years, is to be submitted to the tests of Luther, Calvin, and Beza, and there shall be no trial made of the Calvinistic doctrine, quite new, entirely doubtful, patched up and inconsistent !

Why, at least, may not each one try it for himself ? If that of Nice has not been able to quiet  your brains, why would you, by your statements impose quiet on the brains of your companions, who are as good as you, as wise and as consistent ? Behold the iniquitousness of these judges ; to give liberty to their own opinions they lower the ancient Councils, while with their own opinions they would bridle those of others. They seek their own glory, be sure of that ; and just as much as they take away from the Ancients do they attribute to themselves.

Beza in the Epistle to the King of France and in the fore-mentioned Treatise, says that the Council of Nice was a true Council if ever there was one. He says the truth, never did good Christian doubt about it, nor about the other first three ; but if it be such, why does Calvin call that sentence in the Symbol of the Council — Deum de Deo lumen de lumine — hard ? And how is it that that word consubstantialem was so offensive to Luther — ” My soul hates this word homoousion ; ” a word, however, which so entirely approved itself to that great Council ?

How is it you do not maintain the reality of the body of Our Lord in the holy Sacrament, that you call superstition the most holy sacrifice of the same precious body of Our Saviour which is offered by the priests, and that you will make no difference between the bishop and the priest, — since all this is so expressly not defined but presupposed, there, as perfectly well known in the Church ? Never would Luther, or Peter Martyr, or Ochin have been ministers of yours, if they had remembered the acts of the great Council of Chalcedon ; for it is most expressly forbidden there for religious men and women to marry.

The Council of Constantinople attributes the primacy to the Pope of Rome, and presupposes this as a thing of universal knowledge ; so does that of Chalcedon. But is there any article in which we differ from you, which has not been several times condemned either in holy General Councils, or in particular ones received generally ? And yet your ministers have resuscitated them, without shame, without scruple, not otherwise than though they were certain holy deposits and treasures hidden to Antiquity, or by Antiquity most curiously locked up in order that we might have the benefit of them in this age.

I am well aware that in the Councils there are articles concerning Ecclesiastical order and discipline, which can be changed and are but temporary. But it is not for private persons to interfere with them ; the same authority which drew them up is required for abrogating them ; if anybody else tries to do so it is in vain, and the authority is not the same unless it is a Council, or the general Head, or the custom of the whole Church. As to decrees on doctrines of faith they are invariable; what is once true is so unto eternity ; and the Councils call canons (that is, rules) what they determine in this, because they are inviolable rules for our faith.

But all this is to be understood of true Councils, either general or provincial, approved by General Councils or the Apostolic See. Such as was not that of the four hundred prophets assembled by Ahab [1 Kings 22:6]: for it was neither general, since those of Juda were not called to it, nor duly assembled, for it had no priestly authority. And those prophets were not legitimate or acknowledged as such by Josaphat, King of Juda, when he said : Is there not here some prophet of the Lord that we may inquire by him ? [1 Kings 22:7] — as if he would say that the others were not prophets of the Lord. Such, again, was not the assembly of the priests against Our Lord ; which was so far from having warrant in Scripture for the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that on the contrary it had been declared a private one by the Prophets ; and truly right reason required that when the King was present his lieutenants should lose authority, and that the High Priest being present the dignity of the vicar should be reduced to the condition of the rest.

Besides, it had not the form of a Council ; it was a tumultuous meeting, wanting in the requisite order, without authority from the supreme head of the Church, who was Our Lord, there present with a visible presence, whom they were bound to acknowledge. In truth, when the great sacrificer is visibly present, the vicar cannot be called chief; when the governor of a fortress is present, it is for him, not for his lieutenant, to give the word. Besides all this, the synagogue was to be changed and transferred at that time, and this its crime had been predicted. But the Catholic Church is never to be transferred, so long as the world shall be world ; we are not waiting for any third legislator, nor any other priesthood ; but she is to be eternal.

And yet Our Lord did this honour to the sacrificial dignity of Aaron that in spite of all the bad intention of those who held it the High Priest prophesied and uttered a most certain judgment (that it is expedient one man should die for the people, and the whole nation perish not) [Jn 11:50-51], which he spoke not of himself and by chance, but he prophesied, says the Evangelist, being the High Priest of that year.

Thus Our Lord would conduct the Synagogue and the priestly authority with singular honour to its tomb, when he made it give place to the Catholic Church and the Evangelic priesthood : and then when the Synagogue came to an end (which was in the resolution to put Our Lord to death), the Church was founded in that very death : I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do [Jn 17:4], said Our Lord after the Supper. And in the Supper Our Lord had instituted the New Testament ; so that the Old, with its ceremonies and its priesthood, lost its force and its privileges, though the confirmation of the New was only made by the death of the testator, as S. Paul says [Heb 9].

My intention has been to destroy the force of the two objections which are raised against the infallible authority of Councils and of the Church, the others will be answered in our treatment of particular points of Catholic doctrine. There is nothing so certain but that it can meet with opposition, but truth remains firm and is glorified by the assaults of what is contrary to it.

***

Related Reading:

Dialogue on the Logic of Catholic Infallible Authority [6-4-96]

Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea (vs. James White) [August 1997]

Conciliar Infallibility: Summary from Church Documents [6-5-98]

Infallibility, Councils, and Levels of Church Authority: Explanation of the Subtleties of Church Teaching and Debate with Several Radical Catholic Reactionaries [7-30-99; terminology updated, and a few minor changes made on 7-31-18]

Jerusalem Council vs. Sola Scriptura [9-2-04]

The Analogy of an Infallible Bible to an Infallible Church [11-6-05; rev. 7-25-15; published at National Catholic Register: 6-16-17]

The Bible on Papal & Church Infallibility [5-16-06]

Council of Nicea: Reply to James White: Its Relationship to Pope Sylvester, Athanasius’ Views, & the Unique Preeminence of Catholic Authority [4-2-07]

Protestant Historian Philip Schaff: The Church Fathers Believed in Conciliar Infallibility Based on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) [Facebook, 10-8-07]

Papal Participation in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils [4-22-09]

Popes & Early Ecumenical Councils (vs. Calvin #16) [6-15-09]

Authority and Infallibility of Councils (vs. Calvin #26) [8-25-09]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy [2012]

Acts 16:4 vs. Sola Scriptura & John Calvin?: Is Conciliar Authority Binding on Protestants (Especially When it is Guided by St. Paul and St. Peter?) [11-2-15]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council) [3-2-17]

“Reply to Calvin” #2: Infallible Church Authority [3-3-17]

Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) Decrees: Universally Binding? [11-21-19]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

Photo credit: St. Francis de Sales [Bosco Austalasia / Salesian Journeying with the young]

***

2020-02-06T13:05:34-04:00

Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 1:05 pm   By

This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).

What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.

*****

Part II, Article III: Chapter 1: That we Need Some Other Rule Besides the Word of God

Once when Absalom [2 Sam 15:2-4] wished to form a faction against his good father [David], he sat in the way near the gate, and said to all who went by : There is no man appointed by the king to hear thee … O that they would make me judge over the land, that all that have business might come to me, and I might do them justice. Thus did he undermine the loyalty of the Israelites. But how many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distract the people from obedience to the Church, and to lead Christians into revolt, have cried up and down the ways of Germany and of France : There is no one appointed by the Lord to hear and resolve differences concerning faith and religion ; the Church has no power in this matter ! If you consider well, Christians, you will see that whoever holds this language wishes to be judge himself, though he does not openly say so, more cunning than Absalom.

I have seen one of the most recent books of Theodore Beza, entitled : Of the true, essential and visible marks of the true Catholic Church ; he seems to me to aim at making himself, with his colleagues, judge of all the differences which are between us ; he says that the conclusion of all his argument is that “the true Christ is the only true and perpetual mark of the Catholic Church,” — understanding by true Christ, he says, Christ as he has most perfectly declared himself from the beginning, whether in the Prophetic or Apostolic writings, in what belongs to our salvation.

Higher up he had admitted that there were great difficulties in the Holy Scriptures, but not in things which touch faith. In the margin he places this warning, which he has put almost everywhere in the text : ” The interpretation of Scripture must not be drawn elsewhere than from the Scripture itself, by comparing passages one with another, and adapting them to the analogy of the faith.” And in the Epistle to the King of France : ” We ask that the appeal be made to the holy canonical Scriptures, and that, if there be any doubt as to the interpretation of them, the correspondence and relation which should exist among these passages of Scripture and the articles of faith, be the judge.”

He there receives the Fathers as of authority just as far as they should find their foundation in the Scriptures. He continues : ” As to the point of doctrine we cannot appeal to any irreproachable judge save the Lord himself, who has declared all his counsel concerning our salvation by the Apostles and the Prophets.” He says again that ” his party are not such as would disavow a single Council worthy of the name, general or particular, ancient or later, (take note)—” provided,” says he, ” that the touchstone, which is the word of God, be used to try it.”

That, in one word, is what all these reformers want — to take Scripture as judge. And to this we answer Amen : but we say that our difference is not there ; it is here, that in the disagreements we shall have over the interpretation, and which will occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. They answer that we must decide the interpretation of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we say : but we do not ask how we ought to interpret the Scripture, but — who shall be the judge ?

For after having compared passages with passages, and the whole with the Symbol of the faith, we find by this passage : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt, xvi.), that S. Peter has been chief minister and supreme steward in the Church of God : you say, on your side that this passage : The kings of the nations lord it over them . . . but you not so (Luke xxii.), or this other (for they are all so weak that I know not what may be your main authority) : No one can lay another foundation &c. (i Cor. iii. 11), compared with the other passages and the analogy of the faith makes you detest a chief minister.

The two of us follow one same way in our enquiry concerning the truth in this question — namely, whether there is in the Church a Vicar General of Our Lord — and yet I have arrived at the affirmative, and you, you have ended in the negative; who now shall judge of our difference? Here lies the essential point as between you and me. I quite admit, be it said in passing, that he who shall enquire of Theodore Beza will say that you have reasoned better than I, but on what does he rely for this judgment except on what seems good to himself, according to the pre-judgment he has formed of the matter long ago ? — and he may say what he likes, for who has made him judge between you and me ?

Recognise, Christians, the spirit of division : your people send you to the Scriptures ; — we are there before you came into the world, and what we believe, we find there clear and plain. But, — it must be properly understood, adapting passage to passage, the whole to the Creed ; — we are at this now fifteen hundred years and more. You are mistaken, answers Luther. Who told you so ? Scripture. What Scripture ? Such and such, collated so, and fitted to the Creed. On the contrary, say I, it is you, Luther, who are mistaken : the Scripture tells me so, in such and such a passage, nicely joined and adjusted to such and such a Scripture, and to the articles of the faith.

I am not in doubt, as to whether we must give belief to the holy Word ; — who knows not that it is in the supreme degree of certitude ? What exercises me is the understanding of this Scripture — the consequences and conclusions drawn from it, which being different beyond number and very often contradictory on the same point, so that each one chooses his own, one here the other there — who shall make me see truth through so many vanities ? Who shall give me to see this Scripture in its native colour ? For the neck of this dove changes its appearance as often as those who look upon it change position and distance.

The Scripture is a most holy and infallible touchstone ; every proposition, which stands this test”^ I accept as most faithful and sound. But what am I to do, when I have in my hands this proposition : the natural body of our Lord is really, substantially and actually in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I have it touched at every angle and on every side, by the express and purest word of God, and by the Apostles’ Creed. There is no place when I do not rub it a hundred times, if you like. And the more I examine it the finer gold and purer metal do I recognise it to be made of. You say that having done the same you find base metal in it. What do you want me to do ? All these masters have handled it already, and all have come to the same decision as I, and with such assurance, that in general assemblies of the craft, they have turned out all who said differently.

Good heavens ! who shall resolve our doubts ? We must not speak again of the touchstone or it will be said : The wicked walk round about (Ps. xi. 9). We must have some one to take it up, and to test the piece himself; then he must give judgment, and we must submit, both of us, and argue no more. Otherwise each one will believe what he likes. Let us take care lest with regard to these words we be drawing the Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If the salt hath lost its savour, with what shall it he salted (Matt. V. 13) ? If the Scripture be the subject of our disagreement, who shall decide ?

Ah ! whoever says that Our Lord has placed us in the bark of his Church, at the mercy of the winds and of the tide, instead of giving us a skilful pilot perfectly at home, by nautical art, with chart and com pass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction. Let him have placed therein the most excellent compass and the most correct chart in the world, what use are these if no one knows how to gain from them some infallible rule for directing the ship ? Of what use is the best of rudders if there is no steersman to move it as the ship’s course requires ? But if every one is allowed to turn it in the direction he thinks good, who sees not that we are lost ?

It is not the Scripture which requires a foreign light or rule, as Beza thinks we believe ; it is our glosses; our conclusions, understandings, interpretations, conjectures, additions, and other such workings of man’s brain, which, being unable to be quiet, is ever busied about new inventions. Certainly we do not want a judge to decide between us and God, as he seems to infer in his Letter. It is between a man such as Calvin, Luther, Beza, and another such as Eck, Fisher, More ; for we do not ask whether God understands the Scripture better than we do, but whether Calvin understands it better than S. Augustine or S. Cyprian.

S. Hilary says excellently : ” Heresy is in the understanding, not in the Scripture, and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words.” and S. Augustine : ” Heresies arise simply from this, that good Scriptures are ill-understood, and what is ill-understood in them is also rashly and presumptuously given forth.” It is a true Michol’s game; it is to cover a statue, made expressly, with the clothes of David (I Sam xix.) He who looks at it thinks he has seen David, but he is deceived, David is not there. Heresy covers up, in the bed of its brain, the statue of its own opinion in the clothes of Holy Scripture. He who sees this doctrine thinks he has seen the Holy Word of God, but he is mistaken ; it is not there. The words are there, but not the meaning.

” The Scriptures,” says S. Jerome, ” consist not in the reading but in the understanding “: that is, faith is not in the knowing the words but the sense. And it is here that I think I have thoroughly proved that we have need of another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy Scripture. I say as much of Traditions ; for if each one will bring forward Traditions, and we have no judge on earth to make in the last resort the difference between those which are to be received and those which are not, where, I pray you, shall we be ? We have clear examples. Calvin finds that the Apocalypse is to be received, Luther denies it ; the same with the Epistle of S. James. [Luther considered removing both from his Bible, but in the end did not] Who shall reform these opinions of the reformers ? Either the one or the other is ill formed, who shall put it right ? Here is a second necessity which we have of another rule besides the Word of God.

There is, however, a very great difference between the first rules and this one. For the first rule, which is the Word of God, is a rule infallible in itself, and most sufficient to regulate all the understandings in the world. The second is not properly a rule of itself, but only in so far as it applies the first and proposes to us the right doctrine contained in the Holy Word. In the same way the laws are said to be a rule in civil causes. The judge is not so of himself, since his judging is conditioned by the ruling of the law ; yet he is, and may well be called, a rule, because the application of the laws being subject to variety, when he has once made it we must conform to it.

The Holy Word then is the first law of our faith; there remains the application of this rule, which being able to receive as many forms as there are brains in the world, in spite of all the analogies of the faith, there is need further of a second rule to regulate this application. There must be doctrine and there must be some one to propose it. The doctrine is in the Holy Word, but who shall propose it ? The way in which one deduces an article of faith is this : the Word of God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore Baptism is necessary for salvation. The 1st Proposition cannot be gainsayed, we are at variance with Calvin about the 2nd ; — who shall reconcile us ? Who shall resolve our doubt ? If he who has authority to propose can err in his proposition all has to be done over again. There must therefore be some infallible authority in whose propounding we are obliged to acquiesce. The Word of God cannot err, He who proposes it cannot err; thus shall all be perfectly assured.

Part II, Article III: Chapter 2 (first part): That the Church is an Infallible Guide for Our Faith

Now is it not reasonable that no private individual should attribute to himself this infallible judgment on the interpretation or explanation of the Holy Word ? — otherwise, where should we be ? Who would be willing to submit to the yoke of a private individual ? Why of one rather than of another ? Let him talk as much as he will of analogy, of enthusiasm, of the Lord, of the Spirit, — all this shall never so bind my understanding as that, if I must sail at hazard, I will not jump into the vessel of my own judgment, rather than that of another, let him talk Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Tartar, Moorish, and whatever you like.

If we are to run the risk of erring, who would not choose to run it rather by following his own fancy, than by slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther ? Everybody shall give liberty to his wits to run promiscuously about amongst opinions the most diverse possible ; and, indeed, he will perhaps light on truth as soon as another will. But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err.

I maintain that this judge is no other than the Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the interpretations and conclusions she makes with regard to the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives concerning the difficulties which are found therein. For who has ever heard this doubted of ?

***

Related Reading:

Sola Scriptura, the Old Testament, & Ancient Jewish Practice [1999]

Catholic “Three-Legged Stool”: Scripture, Tradition, & Church: Dialogue with an Anglican on the Catholic Rule of Faith (vs. Jon Jacobson) [10-31-02]

The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete / Interpreter + Bible Passages that the Church has Definitively Interpreted [9-14-03]

Sola Scriptura: Unbiblical!: Refutation of Dr. Richard Bennett [9-15-03]

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura [10-10-03]

“Moses’ Seat” & Jesus vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. James White) [12-27-03]

Sola Scriptura and Private Judgment Are Logically Circular [1-28-04; slight modifications and abridgment on 9-5-17]

Jerusalem Council vs. Sola Scriptura [9-2-04]

Analyzing Luther / Protestant Traditions of Men Inevitable [9-29-04]

Catholic Rule of Faith and Binding Authority: Old Testament Analogies [4-9-06]

1 Timothy 3:15: Sola Scriptura or Visible Church Authority? [10-2-07]

How Do Catholics Approach & Interpret Holy Scripture? [6-17-09]

Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther? (+ later Facebook discussion) [6-15-11]

Reply to a Lutheran on Tradition & the Patristic Rule of Faith [1-10-12; additions on 2-20-18]

Bible: Completely Self-Authenticating, So that Anyone Could Come up with the Complete Canon without Formal Church Proclamations? (vs. Wm. Whitaker) [July 2012]

“Solo” Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura: Reply to Keith Mathison [2012]

Exchanges on Sola Scriptura with Jerome Smith [2-13-14]

Catholic Church: Superior to the Bible?: Does the Catholic Church Claim to be ‘Above’ the Bible and Its “Creator”? [9-14-15]

Acts 16:4 vs. Sola Scriptura & John Calvin? Is Conciliar Authority Binding on Protestants (Especially When it is Guided by St. Paul and St. Peter?) [11-2-15]

Dialogue on Authoritative Bible Interpretation in the New Testament (vs. Reformed Baptist Elder Jim Drickamer) [1-14-17]

Discussion on Sola Scriptura and the Rule of Faith [10-13-17]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

Photo credit: St. Francis de Sales [Bosco Austalasia / Salesian Journeying with the young]

***

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Disability Pride Month: Welcome to the King's Table!
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #9: "Faith Alone" 1
An Unlikely Hero Rises in Action Thriller 'Guns...
Dang it, we ran out of time
Deep Calls to Deep: A Journey into Spiritual...
Should We "Move Fast and Break Things" With...
view all Family blogs