2024-02-27T11:43:06-04:00

Last updated on: February 27, 2024 at 11:43 am   By
0 Comments

+ Does the New Testament Present an Ecclesiology of “The Church”?

Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, scholar, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the very popular YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog.

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist, who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected in one place on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, near the top in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.

This is my 24th reply to his material.

*****

I am responding to one of the central claims made in Gavin’s video, “Which Denomination Should You Choose?” (3-17-23). To anticipate one objection: I’m not seeking to be “triumphalistic” or arrogant in defending Catholic claims or critiquing Protestant ones. Everyone (and that includes Catholics!) defends their own view, whatever it is; they may change later, but they are defending one particular thing at any given point of time. I’m seeking to be, rather, “biblical”: as I always try to be in these disputes.

So I will bring a lot of the New Testament to the table and wonder aloud how Protestants interpret and apply these passages; challenge them a bit. I love to be challenged, myself. Catholics interpret the Bible regarding these matters in a certain way and so do Protestants. We ought to and can discuss them as brethren in Christ, and let folks decide — as best we can, hopefully led by the Holy Spirit’s guidance — what the Bible actually teaches in matters of ecclesiology. But we need to have this important discussion.

0:00 one of the questions I get very frequently is, “suppose I’m convinced of Protestantism; which particular denomination should I choose and how do I know in which particular local church?”

This is a very important question, because if we seek Christian truth, we want all of it that we can get, and since Protestant denominations contradict each other in literally hundreds of ways, it follows logically that someone is wrong in those instances (teaching falsehood) and that different denominations represent different degrees of biblical truth.  Protestantism by nature is not one unified whole, but an amalgam of mutually contradictory systems, that have no way of unifying, because of how they have defined authority and the seeking of Christian, biblical truth.

Of course, there is quite bit of common ground among Protestants, too, but what they have in common tends to be also what Protestants share in common with Catholics (trinitarianism, salvation by grace and so forth). The fact remains that they still massively contradict one another. I submit that this is neither a desirable state of affairs nor biblical.

0:24 [the] first [thing] is to realize that the stakes are not as high in choosing between two Protestant traditions, because the Protestant traditions recognize [that] the church does not begin and end with them. We’re not saying we’re the one true church, so if you make the wrong decision, . . . let’s say you become Anglican and you should have been Presbyterian, or you become Presbyterian and you should have been Methodist or something like this, the difference will not be that you’re not in the one true Church.

The problem with this is that the Bible doesn’t seem to ever teach that all this error can be present among Christians, and that it’s fine and dandy and of no concern (even encouraged). I mentioned in another reply recently that the NT mentions the phrase “the truth” 70 times. It’s presupposing that this entity called “the truth” is out there and can be identified. It does not teach (as far as I can tell) that everyone must somehow grasp for the highest degree of truth they can find (in their subjective, fallible judgment) in one given assembly of several thousand Protestant choices: all of which massively contradict the other groups.

The New Testament (St. Paul) refers to “one faith” (Eph 4:5). Jesus prayed three times during the Last Supper that Christians “may [all] be one” (Jn 17:11, 21-22). And what did He mean by that? Would it include massive doctrinal self-contradiction, as we find in Protestantism? It seems not, since Jesus defines this oneness as being “one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11, 22) and “one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” (Jn 17:21) and “perfectly one” (Jn 17:23). This is the oneness and unity that God the Father and God the Son enjoy. Do they disagree with each other? Never.  See, for one example of many, John 8:28-29: “. . . I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.”

It seems to me that Gavin and Protestantism generally deny that this question of doctrinal and moral unity (including an institution to support such unity) is supremely important. They have given up on seeking it. They take a pass, so to speak. I submit that the New Testament assumes or presupposes that “the one true Church” is a discernible, objective fact (the very thing that Gavin says is not the case with any given Protestant denomination). Protestants act as if the very search for the one Church is impossible; it can’t be found. Otherwise they would identify it (as Catholics and Orthodox do), instead of being quick to deny that they even claim such a thing.

How is it, then, that Protestants can think that this matter is so unimportant that Gavin flat-out denies its crucial and non-optional nature by stating, “We’re not saying we’re the one true church”? This is “The Protestant ‘Non-Quest’ for Certainty”, as I have called it.

The New Testament appears to me to take a very different view. If we look up the phrase “the church” we find that it occurs 91 times in the NT. But most of these refer to a local congregation; we also find the term, “churches” (e.g., Acts 15:41; Rom 16:4 and 33 other times). But in the following 21 passages, it seems clear to me that “the church” or “church” refers — as determined by context —  to the one true Church:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon the whole church, . . .

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

1 Corinthians 11:22 . . . the church of God . . .

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . I persecuted the church of God. (same phrase at Gal 1:13)

Ephesians 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be glory in the church . . .

Ephesians 5:23-25 . . . Christ is the head of the church, his body . . . [24] . . . the church is subject to Christ . . . [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Ephesians 5:27, 29, 32 [“the church” appears three times]

Philippians 3:6 . . . [Paul was] a persecutor of the church . . .

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church . . .

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

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

What does the Protestant do with that data? Well, usually they reply (I used to argue this myself in my Protestant days) that they have a general doctrinal unity, and allow differences on what they call “secondary doctrines” (another notion difficult if not impossible to find in the NT). Jesus urged us to “observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19), without distinguishing between lesser and more central doctrines. The Protestant “solution” for ecclesiology seems, with all due respect, biblically implausible, in light of the fact that in 295 Bible passages (that I have collected in one of my books) notions like “the faith” and “the truth” and “the doctrine” and “teaching” and “the message” are presented as all essentially synonymous.

In other words, again, the “one faith” (Eph 4:5) is assumed in the NT to be an objective entity — a unified body of teaching or “apostolic deposit” that can be identified. It certainly can be on the local level, but it also can be on a churchwide level, such as at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), which made a decree, led by St. Peter and St. James, and by the Holy Spirit (hence, infallible), that applied to the entire Church (very much like later ecumenical councils). Hence, the Apostle Paul shared the decree as binding to local churches all through Asia Minor (Turkey; see Acts 16:4).

We see all this Bible above, yet Gavin describes quintessential Protestant ecclesiology as: “We’re not saying we’re the one true church.” Why, then, I ask in all sincerity (trying to understand this), would anyone want to join one mere denomination, which is (by its own self-description) not the one true Church: the one that Jesus Himself set up, with one of His disciples, Peter, as the leader (the pope?), and the other disciples as, in effect, bishops  (Mt 16:18)? How can this one true Church be said to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) if all it is, is a confusingly self-contradictory collection of thousands of individual denominations?

These inherently entail many hundreds of internal contradictions, and hence, inevitably, doctrinal errors all over the place, even if we can’t immediately determine which denomination is wrong, in terms of doctrine, when it contradicts another, and many others. But we know there are many errors in Protestantism (literally hundreds) by virtue of the nature of a logical contradiction. When two denominations contradict on some point of theology, both can’t be right. At least one is necessarily wrong, and both may be wrong. Error is present, in any event. This must be the case if we accept the laws of logic and of contradiction.

How does this state of affairs bring about the extraordinary oneness — including profound doctrinal agreement — that Jesus prayed for: like the Father and the Son being one? We Catholics contend that the Bible teaches that there is one Church only, with one truth and one unified apostolic tradition (granted, then we must determine how to find it in today’s world). Doctrinal contradiction of any sort is absolutely at odds with biblical teaching, which repeatedly urges unity and forbids divisions of any kind among Christians. Our Lord Jesus viewed His Church as being “one flock” (Jn. 10:16). St. Luke described the earliest Christians as being “of one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32). Luke 2:42 casually mentions “the apostles’ teaching” without any hint that there were competing interpretations of it, or variations of the teaching. St. Peter warned about “false teachers” among Christians, who would “secretly bring in destructive heresies,” which go against “the way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:1-2).

St. Paul, above all, repeatedly condemns “dissensions” (Rom 16:17), “quarreling” (1 Cor 1:11), “jealousy and strife” (1 Cor 3:3), “divisions” and “factions” (1 Cor 11:18-19), “discord” (1 Cor 12:25), “enmity” and “party spirit” (Gal 5:20), and calls for Christians to be “united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10; cf. Phil 2:2). He expressly condemns party affiliations associated with persons (1 Cor 1:12-13: “Is Christ divided?”; cf. 3:4-7).

He regards Christian tradition as of one piece; not an amalgam of permissible competing theories: “the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess 3:6); “the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit” (2 Tim 1:14); “the doctrine which you have been taught” (Rom 16:17); “being in full accord and of one mind” (Phil 2:2); “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil 1:27). He, like Jesus, ties doctrinal unity together with the one God: “. . . maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, . . .” (Eph 4:3-5). His strong and certain teaching on this topic is well summed up in the following two passages:

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962) wrote:

Denominationalism thus represents the moral failure of Christianity. And unless the ethics of brotherhood can gain the victory over this divisiveness within the body of Christ it is useless to expect it to be victorious in the world. But before the church can hope to overcome its fatal division it must learn to recognize and to acknowledge the secular character of its denominationalism. (The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: The World Publishing Co. / Meridian Books, 1957; originally 1929, 25)

That’s what a famous Protestant theologian wrote, mind you. It’s arguably far more critical than anything I have written above. But I fully agree that Protestants have to grapple with the question of denominationalism, which is extraordinarily difficult to justify based on biblical teaching. I freely admitted this when I was a Protestant, too, by the way. I thought it was scandalous and that it made evangelism very difficult to undertake, seeing that Christians disagreed about so much. I didn’t have a definitive “answer” to that (other than that sin brought about seemingly unsolvable division). My solution in the long run was to accept that the Catholic option made more biblical and historical sense: that it tied everything together in a way that no Protestant option could or ever would.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this volume of mine.

Summary: Protestant apologist Gavin Ortlund notes that Protestants are “not saying we’re the one true church.” I reply that the Bible makes it impossible to avoid this issue.

2024-02-02T16:43:53-04:00

Last updated on: February 2, 2024 at 4:43 pm   By
0 Comments

The Ambivalence and Inconsistencies of Protestant Thought on the Earliest “Monarchical” Bishops

Protestants, especially Presbyterians and Baptists, who hold to a “low church” ecclesiology without bishops, habitually argue that monepiscopacy, or the notion and state of affairs of single “monarchical” bishops holding the leadership of local churches, was a phenomenon that only started to significantly — and to them, unfortunately — occur in the mid-second century or even later than that. This is demonstrably untrue, based on the best historical sources we have for the early Church, as I documented in my recent articles about St. Ignatius of Antioch and Church historian Eusebius and other early Church fathers (before 200 AD).

Nevertheless, despite all of this rather compelling evidence, and granting a certain fluidity and development of Church offices in the New Testament and early Church, as I do, and as Cardinal Newman did in writing about development of doctrine, Protestants argue that the norm in the earliest decades of the Church, and the teaching of the Bible, was government by a group of presbyters or elders in each church or congregation.

On the other hand, there is a certain self-contradiction or tension in this view insofar as the same people concede that St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem at the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15; thought to have occurred around 48-51 AD). Despite generally arguing against monepiscopacy in the first two centuries, they somehow manage to make an exception for James in Jerusalem. Why? Well, I submit and speculate that they tend to do that in order to avoid the implication that St. Peter presided over this council, in a position that would correspond to a “bishop of bishops” or the papacy. They don’t like that idea, and so they argue that James presided and was thus “over” Peter. And he did so because he was the bishop of Jerusalem. According to this thinking, there was no higher office in the Church than that.

Renowned 19th century Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff is an interesting case in this regard. He repeatedly asserts in his notes for McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (the first and most important history of the Christian Church), that monepiscopacy was “projected” back from the second or third centuries or beyond, to the Church of the first century. And so, in his Popular Commentary on the NT, in his Introduction to the book of James, he refers to James as “the so-called bishop of Jerusalem.” But then he also virtually contradicts himself, in writing:

James . . . was a prominent person in the early church. . . . he occupied a distinguished position in the early church. To him Peter sent a message, on his release from imprisonment: ‘Go show these things unto James and the brethren’ (Acts 12:7) [should be 12:17]. He presided at the Council of Jerusalem, and pronounced the decree of the assembled church (Acts 15:19). To him, as the head of the church of Jerusalem, Paul repaired on his last visit to that city (Acts 21:18). . . . and along with Peter and John, he mentions him as one of the three pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). In the same Epistle we are also informed, that it was the presence of ‘certain who came from James’ which was the cause of Peter’s withdrawing himself from converse with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:21). . . .

If not actually bishop of Jerusalem, it would appear from these scriptural notices that James at least exercised a very important influence in the mother church. He was the recognised head of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. When Christianity was chiefly confined to Jewish converts, his influence must have been almost paramount And after its extension to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians would esteem him to be peculiarly their apostle, as Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; his influence would not be confined to Jerusalem, but would extend to all believers among the twelve tribes, wherever scattered.

I don’t see how being the “recognised head” of Christians in Jerusalem and indeed “the head of the church of Jerusalem” and a man who “presided at the Council of Jerusalem” is distinguishable from being a bishop. It’s a distinction without a difference, especially since St. Paul in the Bible wrote about bishops five times (Acts 20:28 [“overseers”]; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). So Schaff wants to have his cake and eat it, too, or in other words, he is equivocating. James isn’t the bishop of Jerusalem, but he is, but he isn’t, etc.

This is the sort of cognitive dissonance among Protestants, in grappling with “Catholic” elements of Scripture and early Church history, that was the theme of an entire book of mine:  The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Sophia Institute Press, Aug. 2004). I do love Schaff as a scholar, however, and I’ve cited him hundreds of times because — ultimately — he always tries to be honest, sometimes even despite his strong denominational inclinations. The above is a prime example of this. He doesn’t agree with the idea that James was or could be the bishop of Jerusalem. But the facts are too great to deny it. And so he tries to deny it but in the end, simply can’t.

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce shows a similar ambivalence. He describes James very much as a bishop would be described, yet doesn’t want to use the word. Writing specifically about him and the early church in Jerusalem, he refers to “the increasingly dominant role which James would fill in Jerusalem” which was “documented by Paul and Luke independently” and his “leading role” and the fact that he was “evidently acknowledged as a leader of that church as a whole.” In the Jerusalem Council, “According to Luke, . . . it was James who summed up the sense of the meeting and expressed his judgment . . . the terms of the so-called Jerusalem decree.” In fact, according to Bruce, that “the Jerusalem church could not have promulgated” this decree “without James’s approval. See: Peter, Stephen. James & John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 90-91, 93).

The Eerdmans Bible Commentary, at Acts 15:13, states that “James appears by this time to be the acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem church, . . . (p. 992).

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“James”) opined:

It was this James who assumed leadership of the church in Jerusalem . . . James dominates the accounts of official actions of the council at Jerusalem; he cast the deciding vote . . . According to Church tradition, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. (p. 549)

The New Bible Dictionary (“James”) concurs:

Tradition stated that he was appointed first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself and the apostles (Eus., EH, vii. 19). He presided at the first Council of Jerusalem . . . (p. 597 in the first edition, 1962)

Note how the last two reference sources note that Church “tradition” held that James was the bishop of Jerusalem, without indicating whether they agreed with it or not.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“James”; 1939) exhibits the usual Protestant reluctance to use the word “bishop”:

By the time of the Jerusalem convention, i.e. about 51 AD (compare Ga 2:1), James had reached the position of first overseer in the church (compare Ac 15:13,19). . . . Once more (58 AD), James was head of the council at Jerusalem when Paul made report of his labors, this time of his 3rd missionary Journey (Ac 21:17 ff).

Acts 21:17 refers to a meeting of the Jerusalem church including Paul. James is clearly the leader, as indicated by the wording: “On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present” (RSV). This is similar to the language Peter used in Acts 12:17, after he was delivered from a Jerusalem prison: “Tell this to James and to the brethren.”

McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia (“James”; 1880) is more directly skeptical:

Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 2, 1) says that James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, . . . was surnamed the Just by the ancients on account of his eminent virtue. . . . Eusebius . . . says elsewhere that he was appointed by the apostles (V. Eccl. 2, 23). Clement of Alexandria is the first author who speaks of his episcopate (Hypotyposeis, bk. 6, apud Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 2, 1), and he alludes to it as a thing of which the chief apostles, Peter, James, and John, might well have been ambitious. . . . According to Hegesippus (a converted Jew of the 2nd century) James, the brother of the Lord, undertook the government of the Church along with the apostles (μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων). . . . (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 2, 23).

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- c. 215), according to Eusebius, wrote: “Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”” (EH, Bk II, 1, 3). The above source focuses on Peter, James, and John. Nevertheless, it is stated that the three “chose James” as “bishop of Jerusalem.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. But the Protestant bias shines through again. The obvious facts of the matter as reported have to be undermined somehow, so that episcopal government is not seen to be the norm in the first century Church.

Hegesippus [fl. c. 180] was also cited by Eusebius — writing at a time close to that of Clement of Alexandria — as having stated the following: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, . . . Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop [of Jerusalem]. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (EH, IV, 22, 4; my italics). In the same context (IV, 22, 2-3) Hegesippus refers to “Primus . . . bishop in Corinth” and also a succession of bishops in Rome: “Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” Plainly, he believe in monepiscopacy, including in Jerusalem. Eusebius also cites Hegesippus as stating:

They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, . . . (EH, BK III, 33, 6; my italics)

Again, clear as day. James was bishop of Jerusalem, and then Symeon succeeded him. In his Bk IV, 5, 2-3, Eusebius names fifteen bishops of Jerusalem, from James to Judas (up to 135 AD). We see not a word there about government by a board of presbyters (not even conjointly with Peter and John). All we see are single bishops, one after another in succession.

McClintock and Strong then try to make an issue of how Hegesippus described James’ appointment as bishop of Jerusalem in another passage. Here are the actual words, as translated by Schaff and Wace: “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles” (EH, II, 23, 4; my italics). They construe the word “with” as signifying government by a group rather than by one man. Eusebius had just written in section 1 of the same passage, about “James, . . . to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles.”

The Greek word for “with” Hegesippus used, provided by McClintock and Strong themselves, is μετὰ (meta): Strong’s word #3326 (see also a second Strong’s page for it). As a proposition, it can mean several things. It certainly often — even usually — means “with” but it can also mean “after.” The NASB translation renders meta as “after” 82 times (KJV: 95 times). So it comes down to context. I have already provided two cross-reference from Hegesippus himself that contradict the “Protestant” interpretation in this instance (that James was not sole bishop of Jerusalem). As with the Bible, we interpret less clear utterances of the fathers by clearer ones, and we seek to harmonize them. Schaff draws the same “cynical-of-episcopacy” conclusion in his notes (footnote 491) for Eusebius, EH, II, 23, 4:

μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, “with the apostles”; as Rufinus rightly translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post apostolos, “after the apostles,” as if the Greek were μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, §3) does, that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.

Galatians 2:9 (RSV) reads: “James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This happened in Jerusalem, but technically, it’s not about leadership in the church of Jerusalem in particular. It’s about, I submit, leadership in the universal Church, by apostles who were still then living. If this supposedly means that the three conjointly led the Jerusalem congregation, then Schaff and those who think like him have to explain the contextual remark from Paul fourteen and fifteen verses earlier (Gal 1:18-19): “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Very few argue that Peter — or John — was the leader of the Jerusalem congregation, over against James. Whenever anyone states that there is a bishop or “leader” etc., it’s always James. But if this passage were only about the local Jerusalem church, we would have to conclude from how Paul worded it, then Peter was over James. But if Peter is viewed as the leader of the entire Church, and James of the local Jerusalem church, it makes perfect sense. The three “pillars” of Galatians 2:9 are pillars of the universal Church, not just the church in Jerusalem.

We see similar opinions about James as the leader in Jerusalem (bishop or no) in classic Protestant Bible commentaries (at Acts 15:13):

Ellicott’s Commentary:  James answered.—The position which James the brother of the Lord . . . occupies in the Council is clearly that of pre-eminence, justifying the title of Bishop of Jerusalem, which later writers give him. No one speaks after him; he sum up the whole debate; he proposes the decree which is to be submitted to the Council for approval.
*
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Hearken unto me – This whole transaction shows that Peter had no such authority in the church as the papists pretend, for otherwise his opinion would have been followed without debate. James had an authority not less than that of Peter.
This is sheer nonsense. Peter’s statement was indeed “followed without debate.” The actual text states that “after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, . . .” (Acts 15:7), and that after he spoke (his words recorded in 15:7-11), “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). James — as the local bishop and “master of ceremonies” so to speak — then completely agreed with what Peter had said (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14) and simply reiterated his reasoning, which was the essence and ground of the council’s decree, supporting it from the Bible. It was Peter who was given a vision by God about the inclusion of the gentiles, recorded a bit earlier in Acts.  He took the lead in promulgating this “new” teaching, as is appropriate for a pope. Contrary to Barnes’ inane anti-Catholic view, Peter is presented as the leader of the Church in the first half of the book of Acts (before it moves on to describing St. Paul’s life and activities), as He was before Jesus’ death, too:
Peter’s name occurs first in a list of the apostles (Acts 1:13; cf. Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14).
*
Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8).

Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (1 Cor 9:5; cf. Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to! He’s even mentioned more than St. Paul, whose name appears 184 times in the NT (23 of those as Saul).

Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18).

All of this (most of it in the first half of the book of Acts) is in the New Testament, yet Barnes claims that “James had an authority not less than that of Peter?”! It’s utterly ludicrous. But that is what bias does to a mind. And Barnes is very often and excellent, insightful commentator.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:  James . . .  was the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, and . . . president of the assembly, . . .
*
Matthew Poole’s Commentary: . . . president of this council.
Meyer’s NT Commentary: . . . highly esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, . . .
*
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: James sums up the discussion, and pronounces the decision of the Church on this controversy . . . bishop of Jerusalem, . . . The president’s summary takes no note of the “much disputing” (Acts 15:7) but points out that a divine revelation had been made to Peter, and that it was accordant with the words of Old Testament prophecy. On these warrants he based his decision.
Pulpit Commentary: James’s place as presiding bishop is here distinctly marked by his summing up the debate. . . . A remarkable testimony against papal supremacy.
*
John Calvin in his Commentaries helpfully illustrates — with remarkable transparency if not cogency — how bias inclines Protestants (like Barnes and the Pulpit Commentary above) to think that James led the church in Jerusalem, so as to supposedly slight Peter (although it does no such thing), even though otherwise the same people might inconsistently opine that monepiscopacy wasn’t present in the first century:
*
[W]e shall see afterwards how great his authority was at Jerusalem. The old writers think that this was because he was bishop of the place; but it is not to be thought that the faithful did at their pleasure change the order which Christ had appointed. Wherefore, I do not doubt but that he was son to Alpheus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent; neither doth it greatly make for the matter, save only because the impudency of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down rather at the appointment, and according to the authority of James than of Peter. And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whosoever he were, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter’s successor, who suffered another to rule him, if we believe Eusebius.
*
Note, by the way, that Calvin believed that James — someone called “the Lord’s brother” — was literally His “cousin,” and that this is the scriptural “sense” in which “brother” is often used in the NT, thus disagreeing with the vast majority of Protestants today who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity. I have myself documented this several times (Luther and virtually all of the early Protestant leaders believed the same).
*
I have no idea what Calvin is referring to in claiming that Eusebius wrote that James was “the Bishop of the Apostles.” In Bk II, ch. 1, the word “bishop” occurs twice (in sections 2 and 3): both times referring to James as the bishop of Jerusalem. I searched in vain for the word “bishop” in the next fifteen chapters of Eusebius; so Calvin appears to have been using an edition of Eusebius that is now antiquated and inaccurate. Nice try, though. Calvin also futilely tried to argue — probably because of the same bias — that the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch were not authentic.
*
It’s appropriate and fitting to end with Calvin’s words — so quintessentially and “textbook” low church Protestant — and my reply.
*
Related Reading

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: The original Peter, Paul, & Mary: Madonna and Child with Sts. Peter and Paul (1608-1609), by Giuseppe Cesari (1568-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: The “anti-Petrine” bias of Protestants leads them to posit that James was bishop of Jerusalem in the 1st century: when single bishops supposedly didn’t exist.

2023-12-27T14:12:10-04:00

Last updated on: December 27, 2023 at 2:12 pm   By
0 Comments

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian  perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, Eleventh Topic: The Law of God, Eighth Question: The Worship of Relics). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated.  All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

*****

Should the bodies of saints and relics be adored with religious worship?

No. They should be venerated, not worshiped, like all holy things. As we have explained till we’re blue in the face (some folks are dense or slow, I reckon), adoration is for God alone.

We deny against the papists 

No, he denies against a straw man, not what the “papists” actually believe. You would think that an educated man could get it right. But that’s too much to ask. Where anti-Catholicism is concerned, straw men, ignorant, misguided insults, and non sequiturs rule the day, along with ignoring large portions of the Bible.

Although indeed the Sophists of the present day . . . deny that the adoration due to God is paid to them, but only veneration and honor; still it is certain that it was sanctioned by the authority of the Second Council of Nicea in these words: “Adoring bones, ashes, garments, blood, and sepulchers, still we do not sacrifice to them” (Actione 4, Mansi, 13:47).

Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum is the official source for Catholic dogma. #600-603 in the 2012 edition are from the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.  The Definition concerning Sacred Images from Session 8, on October 23rd referred to such images or relics twice as “venerable” (#600, p. 207), and believers are urged “to give them salutation and respectful veneration. This, however, is not actual worship, which, according to our faith, is reserved to the divine nature alone. “Honor[ed]” and “venerates” are both mentioned twice more in this section (#601, p. 207). Further statements of the council from the same day refer to “veneration” (#605, p. 208) and “honor” (#608, p. 208). No adoration or worship seen here.

The older 1955 version (#302; see online on page 121; cf. #306, p. 123) is very similar. #302 states that “to render honorable adoration to them, not however, to grant true latria according to our faith.” Precisely. Why can’t Turretin get it right? There are many more Catholic decrees about it that Turretin could have consulted. Pope John XV wrote in 993 (Encyclical Cum conventus esset), that Catholics

venerate and honor the relics of the martyred and confessors in order that we may venerate him whose martyrs and confessors they are; we honor the servants so that honor may redound to the Lord, who said” Whoever receives you, receives me” [Mt 10:40] . . . (#675, p. 231)

It’s very clear what is going on. Something might be made of the fact that adoramus is the original Latin for “venerate” in this statement. But according to a Latin-English dictionary, the word can mean “reverence, honor, worship, adore.” In other words, it’s just like the Greek and biblical word proskuneo, that is applied both to God in the Bible and also many times to persons. Context determines the meaning, and it’s made very clear in the above statement. There is no usurpation of the Lord’s sole prerogatives; no idolatry or blasphemy. It is believed that the veneration of saints is a form of thanking and worshiping God, by Whose grace they are what they are. Turretin has no case against us.

Pope Martin V in 1418 referred to relics being “venerated” (venerari): #1269, p. 333). This word has a range of meaning, just as adoramus and proskuneo do. So we must go by context and what the Catholic Church decrees as proper belief and practice with regard to relics. Nowhere do we teach that they ought to be adored in place of God, as idols.

The Council of Trent on December 3, 1563, stated that relics are to be venerated and honored (#1822, p. 429; cf. #1867, p. 436), because “Through them many benefits are granted to men by God.” That’s not idolatry. God did many things through St. Paul, for example, that the great evangelist often refers to in his epistles (including “saving” others, many times). Was he trying to make himself an idol, equal to or above God, in so writing? Of course not. What he was saying applies to all saints, especially the following, which perfectly typifies biblical and Hebraic paradox:

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

Scripture has sanctioned such worship nowhere either by command or promise or example.

Relics has to do with the principles of sacramentalism: grace conveyed by physical things (e.g., water, the Eucharist), and the belief is part and parcel of the reverence that Scripture extends to all holy things. Hence, King David says, “I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee” (Ps 5:7). The temple is holy, so to worship towards it or in it is a good thing. And it’s holy because of its connection to God, as His special dwelling place on earth: especially in the Holy of Holies at its center (Ex 25:21-22).  

The ark of the covenant was so holy it could not be touched, and hence it was transported with poles that ran through rings on its side (Ex 25:13-15). In fact, on one occasion, when it was about to fall over while being moved, after the oxen stumbled, one Uzziah merely reached out to steady it and was immediately struck dead (2 Sam 6:7). Mt. Sinai was holy due to God’s tangible presence there, in the burning bush (Ex 3:5). Just before the Hebrews were to receive the Ten Commandments, God charged the people to not even touch the mountain, or its “border,” on pain of death (19:12-13). Even animals were included in the restriction! God’s special presence – considered apart from the fact that He is also omnipresent – imparts holiness (Deut 7:6).

The New Testament continues to refer to Jerusalem as the “holy city” (Mt 4:5; 27:53 above), and Jesus spoke of the Holy of Holies as “the holy place” (Mt 24:15; cf. Heb 9:2, 12, 25). St. Peter calls the Mount of Transfiguration “the holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:17-18; cf. Mt 17:1-6). Protestants widely use the terms “Holy Bible” and “Holy Land”. In so doing, they tacitly acknowledge the notion of “holy things”: even though, if pressed, they may argue against it, as I once did myself. If something is holy, then it can and should be reverences, including the bodies of holy people who have died.

Someone might agree with all of the above but note that it is not directly pertaining to relics. Well, the Bible has a lot about them, too, which is better understood in light of the above underlying principles. The Bible provides examples of relics having power to heal or bring about other miracles:

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

Methodist Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the above passage, admitted the validity of the principle involved here, even though his subsequent remarks reveal that he doesn’t personally care much for it:

This shows that the prophet did not perform his miracles by any powers of his own, but by the power of God; and he chose to honour his servant, by making even his bones the instrument of another miracle after his death.

2 Kings 2:14 Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.”

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

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (cf. Matthew 9:20-22)

Elisha’s bones were what Catholics classify as a “first-class” relic — a relic from the person himself. These passages, on the other hand, offer examples of “second-class” relics —  items that have power because they were connected with a holy person (Elijah’s mantle and even St. Peter’s shadow) — and third-class relics, or something that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul).

God said to Moses regarding the body of a lamb offered at the temple: “Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy …” (Leviticus 6:27). So now we again have a dead thing (like Elisha’s bones) imparting holiness. How is that any different from Catholic relics? Likewise, the same was said even of the cereal offering (Leviticus 6:14-18).

Protestant critics of relics will ask where we should draw the line between a proper use of relics and a corrupt, idolatrous one. If they become idols in place of God or are used for financial gain, or are thought to be magic charms (superstition), that’s wrong, and the line has been crossed. The understanding of them has to be sacramental and incarnational, and grounded in a proper biblical understanding of the veneration of saints.

Superstition and idolatry are — like lust or pride or greed — erroneous and wicked attitudes that reside in someone’s heart. We don’t usually know if this is what they are thinking simply by observing outward actions. Two people could be bowing before a relic. One is in fact (if we knew their inner attitude) viewing it as a charm or an idol, and is gravely sinning. The other is venerating it, which is perfectly biblical and Catholic. So the lines are difficult to determine, based on these inherently subjective factors. It’s not a simple matter.

If God wanted human beings to bow before and pray to God and worship Him before inanimate objects such as the ark of the covenant and the temple, because it was thought that holy things gave special power and efficacy to prayers, how much more should we venerate bodies of saints?:

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, . . .

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel. (cf. Deut 10:8)

2 Chronicles 7:3 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.”

Psalm 138:2 I bow down toward thy holy temple and give thanks to thy name for thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness; for thou hast exalted above everything thy name and thy word.

King Solomon prayed before the sacred altar: both standing and kneeling (1 Ki 8:22-23; cf. 8:54 [kneeling]; 2 Chr 6:12-14; the Jews swore oaths by the altar in the temple: 2 Chr 6:22). The prophet Daniel prayed to and thanked God in the direction of Jerusalem, three times a day, even from Babylon (Dan 6:10; cf. 1 Ki 8:44, 48; 2 Chr 6:20-21, 26-27, 29-30, 32-34, 38). Levites talked to God before the ark as well (Dt 10:8; cf. 1 Ki 3:15; 8:5; 1 Chr 16:4; 2 Chr 5:6). So how — in light of all of the above — can there possibly be an objection to praying in conjunction with relics?

The principle is precisely the same as what we have in the Bible, as far as I can see. Jesus exhibited the same sacramental principle, in using His saliva to heal someone, and by His robe healing a woman, or telling the blind man to go wash in the Pool of Siloam (after which he could see). He took a girl by the hand before He raised her from the dead (Mt 9:25), and touched blind people’s eyes before healing them (Mt 20:34), and touched a person’s hand before healing a fever (Mk 1:31), and touched an ear before healing it (Lk 22:51). The question is: why did Jesus do that when all He had to do was declare a healing? He did so because it was one of many examples of the sacramental principle behind relics.

And what He said about the woman being healed by touching “the fringe of his garment” (Lk 8:44) is remarkable with regard to relics. He referred to “some one” who “touched me” twice (Lk 8:45-46), and Luke reiterates that “she had touched him” (Lk 8:47). But literally speaking, she had not touched “Him” at all. She merely touched “the fringe of his garment”. Therefore, Jesus was equating His power with His own garment, and in a certain qualified sense, even Himself with it, in saying, “I perceive that power has gone forth from me” (Lk 8:46). The power went out from Him, through His garment, to the woman, and caused her to be healed. This is the Catholic doctrine of second-class relics, right from the mouth of Jesus.

It was the same with the apostles:

Acts 5:12 Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. . . .

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Acts 19:11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,

Protestants will, furthermore, object to pilgrimages to relics in order to have more meritorious and efficacious prayer. This is little different from all the Israelite pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the feast days and to offer sacrifice in the temple. Holy places and holy things in the Bible have power, and this power can transfer in some supernatural way to Christians. Protestants object that paying a lot of money to do so is improper.

But I counter-reply that we shouldn’t object to a pious Catholic (now or in the Middle Ages) paying a lot of money to make a pilgrimage to a holy place, including seeing and venerating relics (it cost a lot of money for me to go to Israel), when we have no objection whatsoever to folks going on expensive vacations on yachts, or flying all around the world, spending multiple thousands of dollars (not to mention a host of other arguably materialistic things). If we can go see the wonders of nature or man’s architectural masterpieces, why is it immediately thought to be a “problem” if someone pays money to go on a religious pilgrimage?

Even Martin Luther (who started the Protestant movement) advocated the goodness and propriety of relics after his 95 Theses (October 1517) and even after the pivotal and famous (or infamous) Diet of Worms (January-May 1521):

[W]e ought to encase the bones of saints in silver; this is good and proper. (Sermons I, ed. and tr. John W. Doberstein; Sermon on the Man Born Blind, 17 March 1518; in Luther’s Works, vol. 51)

Many make pilgrimages to Rome and to other holy places to see the robe of Christ, the bones of the martyrs, and the places and remains of the saints, which we certainly do not condemn. (Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses, Aug. 1518; tr. Carl W. Folkemer; in Luther’s Works, vol. 31)

These many years your Grace has been acquiring relics in every land; but God has now heard your Grace’s request and has sent your Grace, without cost or trouble, a whole cross, with nails, spears and scourges. I say again, grace and joy from God on the acquisition of the new relic! (To the Elector Frederic of Saxony, end of Feb. 1522; in Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Vol. II: 1521-1530; translated and edited by Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs [Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: 1918] )

Luther’s 95 Theses never even mentioned relics, which makes sense, since he wrote all three of the above statements after the time of the 95 Theses.

A Protestant might object that people in the Bible didn’t collect and venerate bones; they simply buried people. But of course, a proper burial is honoring a  person, and visiting gravesites (as every Protestant has done) is not wholly unlike giving homage to holy persons and saints and making pilgrimages to their gravesites or relics connected with them. This is nowhere more evident than in the extreme reverence that Jews to this day give to gravesites of their heroes of the faith. I observed this firsthand in Israel in 2014 at Rachel’s tomb and King David’s. These are very holy places, and they are acting just as their ancestors did.

Protestants object that human beings tend to become idolaters, including of relics. The solution to that is to reform hearts and transform souls by the power of God, prayer, grace, and conversion of heart. The answer is not to eliminate every practice — including relics — that might lead to idolatry in such people. Lots of people make the Bible an idol, or find doctrines in it that simply aren’t there. Does that mean we get rid of the Bible, which arguably “caused” all the false doctrines floating around? No, we correct and educate such people and push them in the right direction.

It’s no different in Protestantism. Sola fide (faith alone) is sadly all too often corrupted into antinomianism. Love of the Bible becomes bibliolatry or a radical Bible Alone position. Private judgment devolves into rampant sectarianism and denominationalism. The various denominations don’t teach these things, but they are rampant “on the ground”: just as Protestants complain about Catholicism and relics. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. We reform the practice and foster a right understanding of the essential meaning underneath and behind it.

As often as in the Old or New Testament the examples of the dead are commemorated, their bodies are said to have been committed to the earth without any ostentation or religious veneration. Thus dying Jacob and Joseph ordered their bones to be carried out of Egypt to Canaan that they might rest with their fathers; but nowhere do we read that they were adored or kissed, nor were they placed in a tabernacle or carried about in processions or placed upon altars (all which are constantly practiced in the Roman church). 

That’s right. But we do read about God commanding manna (a second-class relic of God Himself, so to speak) to be kept:

Exodus 16:32-34 And Moses said, “This is what the LORD has commanded: `Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” [33] And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD, to be kept throughout your generations.” [34] As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony, to be kept.

Why? What was the purpose? Why wasn’t the written biblical record enough? Why did God also command Moses to keep Aaron’s staff (Num 17:10), to also be kept in the ark? That was a second-class relic of Aaron. Both, along with the tablets of the Ten Commandments (a second-class relic of Moses, and written by the finger of God: Ex 31:18; Deut 4:13; 10:1-4), were kept in the ark of the covenant (Deut 10:2, 5; Heb 9:4), which we have seen was regarded as a great aid in prayer, praise, petitions to God, and the holiest item in the Jewish religion, just as the Wailing Wall is today, because it was connected with the temple; and they pray there as a result and believe that the prayers will be especially efficacious. I was honored and privileged to do the same.

Imagine, all of this is in the Bible, and yet the learned Turretin, blissfully ignorant, stupidly asserts: “Scripture has sanctioned such worship [what we say is, rather, veneration] nowhere either by command or promise or example.” 

And how could the Israelites be induced to kiss or carry about relics when (according to the law of Moses) he was considered polluted who had only touched a corpse.

Well, Turretin needs to answer this himself, since God commanded the Israelites to carry around and venerate His own relics; things directed connected with and caused by Him (manna that He sent — Ex 16:29; Deut 8:3, 16; Ps 78:24; Jn 6:31 —  and the tablets of the Ten Commandments that He wrote on).

God himself is said to have buried and concealed the body of Moses (Dt. 34:6) in order that the Israelites might not abuse the relics of so great a man to idolatry. 

Really? Who “said” this? It’s not in the Bible that I can find. If not, it’s merely a bald unsubstantiated surmise or speculation of Turretin, that has no authority and is irrelevant to the present dispute. But I am making biblical arguments, not just pulling thoughts out of a hat like a rabbit. But assume for a moment that God did do it for that reason. Why, then, wouldn’t He do that with anyone else? Joseph’s and Jacob’s bones were carried from Egypt. Why didn’t God take them and bury them secretly, for the same supposed reason that Turretin makes a wild guess about? King David was buried, so was Rachel. I visited their tombs in Israel. We know where Abraham was buried (in Hebron). Their bones could have been improperly venerated (from the Protestant perspective), just as Moses’ bones may have been.

It is very consistent with this that there was no other cause of the contest between Michael and Satan (mentioned in Jd. 9) than that Satan
wished to draw forth the dead body of Moses, which Michael wished to conceal and keep hidden.

More groundless thoughts of Turretin’s overactive imagination . . . Jude 9 no more supports his interpretation than Deuteronomy 34:6 does. Neither says a single thing about this supposed reason of God’s.

Christ rebukes “the Pharisees and scribes, hypocrites, because ye build tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous”
(Mt. 23:29) in the meantime despising their doctrines. No less are they to be censured who worship and venerate their dead bodies lying in sepulchers. 

This is a truly dumb and clueless argument. Context plainly proves that this statement from Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with relics. It had an entirely different target and meaning:

Matthew 23:29-32 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, [30] saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ [31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. [32] Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

It’s nothing new for anti-Catholics to utterly ignore even the immediate context of a Bible passage, in their rush to mock and “disprove” Catholicism. It happens all the time. This is an absolutely classic example of it.

The miracle divinely performed at the bones of Elisha (2 K. 13:21) confirmed the faith of his preceding prophecy concerning the coming
irruption of the Moabites, but does not favor the religious worship of his body. 

The miracles shows that the presuppositional Catholic principle is correct: holy things, including the bodies of holy people, carry spiritual and potentially miraculous power. From this it follows that they can and should be venerated, the basis of which has already been abundantly shown above. All Turretin has are his own hostile man-made traditions, which are neither biblical nor in accord with the development of the doctrine throughout Church history.

*

*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Elisha dividing the waters of Jordan with Elijah’s mantle, by Jean-Baptiste Despax (1710-1773) [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Summary: As part of my series of replies to Calvinist expositor Francois Turretin, I address the communion of saints, particularly  relics, which are quite biblically based.

 

2023-12-11T12:38:37-04:00

Last updated on: December 11, 2023 at 12:38 pm   By
0 Comments

Chapter 10 (pp. 305-349) of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains 2,051 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few (indented) clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

“VAIN REPETITION” CHARGE (MASS, ROSARY, ETC.) / FORMAL, “LITURGICAL”  WORSHIP 

Psalm 136:1-5 O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever. [2] O give thanks to the God of gods, for his steadfast love endures for ever. [3] O give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures for ever; [4] to him who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures for ever; [5] to him who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures for ever;

The same exact phrase is repeated in 26 straight verses, for the entire Psalm. Obviously, then, God is not opposed to all repetition whatsoever. Repetition is a device used throughout the Psalms and also in Proverbs and the prophets. For example, in Psalm 29 “voice of the Lord” is repeated seven times in as many verses. “Thou hast” is repeated in six straight verses in Psalm 44:9-14.

Instructions concerning the Mosaic Law in the first five books are extremely repetitious. Elaborate, painstaking Instructions for the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:1-22), the tabernacle (Ex 25:23-40; chapters 26-27), and the Temple (1 Kings, chapters 6-7) illustrate the highly ritualistic nature of Hebrew worship (see also Leviticus 23:37-38 and 24:5-8). The four gospels often repeat each other’s sayings. Many other examples could be cited.

Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases [KJV: “vain repetitions”] as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Jesus is discussing “empty phrases”. The Greek battalogeo here means “to repeat idly,” or “meaningless and mechanically repeated phrases.” So the Lord is condemning prayers uttered without the proper reverence or respect for God.

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

God is concerned with the inner dispositions and righteousness of the worshiper, and adherence to His commands (e.g., Is 56:6-7; Jer 17:24-26; Mal 1:11), not with outward appearance or how often something is repeated (which is contradicted by Psalm 136 and the passage above). This is a common theme in Scripture, and is seen in the following passages:

Isaiah 1:13-17 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Jeremiah 6:19-20 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Amos 5:11-14, 21-24: Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (cf. Prov 15:8; 21:27; Mal 1:6-14)

Matthew 15:7-9 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” (cf. Mk 7:6-7)

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

James 1:26-27: If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Ritualistic, formal worship of God is described as taking place in heaven (Rev 4:8-11; 5:8-14), complete with repetitious prayer (Rev 4:8 above), and repeated chants or hymns (4:11, 5:9-10).

HOLY WATER

Exodus 23:25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

Numbers 5:17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

Numbers 19:9, 13-20 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin. . . . Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean. . . . Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel; then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean. But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.  

2 Kings 2:19-22 Now the men of the city said to Eli’sha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him.
Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the LORD, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Eli’sha spoke.

2 Kings 5:13-14 But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.  

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Water in Scripture is utilized for cleansing (Lev 14:8-9, 50-52; 15:5-27; 17:15; Num 8:7; 19:12, 18-19; 2 Ki 5:12; Ps 51:7; Ezek 16:4; 36:25) and purifying (Ex 29:4; 40:12, 30-32; Lev 11:32; 16:4, 24, 26, 28; 22:6; Num 19:7-8; 31:23; Deut 23:10-11; 1 Ki 18:33-34; Jn 2:6; Heb 9:19).

CANDLES AND INCENSE

Incense or burning sacrifices, as an image of prayer or offering, along with the metaphorical smelling of the offering by God, is a common biblical motif:

Genesis 8:20-21 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.”

Leviticus 2:9 And the priest shall take from the cereal offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD.

Leviticus 6:15, 21 And one shall take from it a handful of the fine flour of the cereal offering with its oil and all the frankincense which is on the cereal offering, and burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a pleasing odor to the LORD. . . . It shall be made with oil on a griddle; you shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a cereal offering, and offer it for a pleasing odor to the LORD.

Psalm 141:2 Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice!

Luke 1:9-10 according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

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

The Bible even uses the symbolism of fragrance for the gospel, Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice on the cross, and charitable giving:

2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Philippians 4:18 I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphrodi’tus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Explicit evidence for candles in the Bible is seen in the form of “lamps”. The classic form of this is the menorah, or seven-branched lampstand, which has often been used as a symbol of Judaism. The King James Bible often uses candle or candlestick in these passages and others (as did the American Standard Version of 1901). But the Greek lychnos and lychnia describe (technically) oil lamps, not candles per se (made of wax: as we know them today). These were containers filled with olive oil, with a wick of flax or hemp.

Exodus 25:31-38 And you shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The base and the shaft of the lampstand shall be made of hammered work; its cups, its capitals, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it; and there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; three cups made like almonds, each with capital and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almonds, each with capital and flower, on the other branch — so for the six branches going out of the lampstand; and on the lampstand itself four cups made like almonds, with their capitals and flowers, and a capital of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. Their capitals and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one piece of hammered work of pure gold. And you shall make the seven lamps for it; and the lamps shall be set up so as to give light upon the space in front of it. Its snuffers and their trays shall be of pure gold. (cf. 26:35; Num 3:31; 4:9; 8:2-4; 1 Sam 3:3; 1 Ki 7:49; 1 Chron 28:15; 2 Chron 4:7,20-21; Jer 52:19; Zech 4:2, 11)

Exodus 27:19-20 All the utensils of the tabernacle for every use, and all its pegs and all the pegs of the court, shall be of bronze. And you shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may be set up to burn continually. (cf. Lev 24:2-4)

Exodus 30:7-8 And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it; every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, and when Aaron sets up the lamps in the evening, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. (cf. 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17-23; 39:37; 40:4)

Exodus 40:24-25 And he put the lampstand in the tent of meeting, opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle, and set up the lamps before the LORD; as the LORD had commanded Moses.

2 Chronicles 13:11 They offer to the LORD every morning and every evening burnt offerings and incense of sweet spices, set out the showbread on the table of pure gold, and care for the golden lampstand that its lamps may burn every evening; for we keep the charge of the LORD our God, but you have forsaken him.

2 Chronicles 29:7 They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense or offered burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel.

1 Maccabees 4:49-50 They made new holy vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. Then they burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lampstand, and these gave light in the temple.

2 Maccabees 10:3 They purified the sanctuary, and made another altar of sacrifice; then, striking fire out of flint, they offered sacrifices, after a lapse of two years, and they burned incense and lighted lamps and set out the bread of the Presence.

Hebrews 9:2 For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place.

Revelation 1:12-13, 20 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; . . . As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Revelation 2:1, 5 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: “The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. . . . Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”

Revelation 4:5 From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God;

FASTING AND ABSTINENCE  AND LENT (50 PASSAGES) 

Exodus 24:18 And Moses entered the cloud, and went up on the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Leviticus 10:9 Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

Numbers 6:1-4 And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.”

Deuteronomy 9:9 When I went up the mountain to receive the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.

Deuteronomy 9:25 So I lay prostrate before the LORD for these forty days and forty nights, because the LORD had said he would destroy you.

Deuteronomy 29:5-6 I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out upon you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet; you have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink; that you may know that I am the LORD your God.

Judges 13:3-5 And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have no children; but you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Therefore beware, and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for lo, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (cf. 13:14)

1 Samuel 1:15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman sorely troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD.

1 Samuel 31:13 And they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

2 Samuel 1:12 and they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.

2 Samuel 12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. (cf. 12:21-23)

1 Kings 19:8 And he [Elijah] arose, and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God.

1 Chronicles 10:12 And they buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

2 Chronicles 20:3 Then Jehosh’aphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.

Ezra 8:21, 23 Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Aha’va, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a straight way for ourselves, our children, and all our goods. . . . So we fasted and besought our God for this, and he listened to our entreaty. (cf. 9:5)

Nehemiah 1:4 When I heard these words I sat down and wept, and mourned for days; and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven.

Nehemiah 9:1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:3 And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Esther 4:16 Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.

Esther 9:31 that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as Mor’decai the Jew and Queen Esther enjoined upon the Jews, and as they had laid down for themselves and for their descendants, with regard to their fasts and their lamenting.

Psalm 35:13 But I, when they were sick — I wore sackcloth, I afflicted myself with fasting. I prayed with head bowed on my bosom,

Psalm 69:10 . . . I humbled my soul with fasting, . . .

Psalm 109:24 My knees are weak through fasting; my body has become gaunt.

Jeremiah 36:9 In the fifth year of Jehoi’akim the son of Josi’ah, king of Judah, in the ninth month, all the people in Jerusalem and all the people who came from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem proclaimed a fast before the LORD.

Ezekiel 4:4-12 Then lie upon your left side, and I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you; for the number of the days that you lie upon it, you shall bear their punishment. For I assign to you a number of days, three hundred and ninety days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment; so long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah; forty days I assign you, a day for each year. And you shall set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem, with your arm bared; and you shall prophesy against the city. And, behold, I will put cords upon you, so that you cannot turn from one side to the other, till you have completed the days of your siege. And you, take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt, and put them into a single vessel, and make bread of them. During the number of days that you lie upon your side, three hundred and ninety days, you shall eat it. And the food which you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; once a day you shall eat it. And water you shall drink by measure, the sixth part of a hin; once a day you shall drink. And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.

Daniel 6:18 Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

Daniel 9:3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Joel 1:14 Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly. . . . (cf. 2:15)

Joel 2:12 “Yet even now,” says the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;”

Jonah 3:5 And the people of Nin’eveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.

Zechariah 8:19 Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love truth and peace. (cf. 7:3, 5)

Tobit 12:8 Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold.

Judith 4:9, 13 And every man of Israel cried out to God with great fervor, and they humbled themselves with much fasting. . . . So the Lord heard their prayers and looked upon their affliction; for the people fasted many days throughout Judea and in Jerusalem before the sanctuary of the Lord Almighty.

Judith 8:6 She fasted all the days of her widowhood, except the day before the sabbath and the sabbath itself, the day before the new moon and the day of the new moon, and the feasts and days of rejoicing of the house of Israel.

Sirach 34:26 So if a man fasts for his sins, and goes again and does the same things, who will listen to his prayer? And what has he gained by humbling himself?

2 Maccabees 13:12 . . . they . . . besought the merciful Lord with weeping and fasting and lying prostrate for three days without ceasing,. . . (cf, 1 Macc 3:47; Baruch 1:5)

Matthew 4:2 And he [Jesus] fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry.

Matthew 6:16-18 And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (cf. Mk 2:18-20; Lk 5:33-35; 18:12)

Luke 2:37 . . . She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, “He has a demon.” (cf. Mt 11:18; Lk 1:15)

Acts 13:2-3 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:20 . . . abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:29 . . . abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. . . . (cf. 21:25)

Romans 14:3 Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.

Romans 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Romans 14:15, 21 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. . . . it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall. (cf. 2 Cor 6:4-5; 11:27)

The forty days of Lenten observance have several forty day parallels in Scripture (all listed above): Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).

ASHES ON ASH WEDNESDAY 

Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Genesis 18:27 Abraham answered, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.”

2 Samuel 13:19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent the long robe which she wore; and she laid her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud as she went.

Nehemiah 9:1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:1, 3 When Mor’decai learned all that had been done, Mor’decai rent his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, wailing with a loud and bitter cry; . . . And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Job 2:8 And he took a potsherd with which to scrape himself, and sat among the ashes.

Job 34:15 all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.

Job 42:6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Psalm 90:3 Thou turnest man back to the dust, . . .

Isaiah 58:5 Is such the fast that I choose, a day for a man to humble himself? Is it to bow down his head like a rush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the LORD?

Jeremiah 6:26 O daughter of my people, gird on sackcloth, and roll in ashes; make mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation; for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.

Jeremiah 25:34 Wail, you shepherds, and cry, and roll in ashes, . . .

Ezekiel 27:30 and wail aloud over you, and cry bitterly. They cast dust on their heads and wallow in ashes;

Daniel 9:3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Jonah 3:6 Then tidings reached the king of Nin’eveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

Judith 4:11, 15 And all the men and women of Israel, and their children, living at Jerusalem, prostrated themselves before the temple and put ashes on their heads and spread out their sackcloth before the Lord. . . . With ashes upon their turbans, they cried out to the Lord with all their might to look with favor upon the whole house of Israel.

Sirach 17:32 He marshals the host of the height of heaven; but all men are dust and ashes.

Sirach 40:3 from the man who sits on a splendid throne to the one who is humbled in dust and ashes, 

1 Maccabees 3:47 They fasted that day, put on sackcloth and sprinkled ashes on their heads, and rent their clothes. (cf. 4:39)

Matthew 11:21 Woe to you, Chora’zin! woe to you, Beth-sa’ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (cf. Lk 10:13)

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. (cf. 15:48-49)

Revelation 18:19 And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, . . . 

EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

This sort of self-examination (usually prior to confession) is sometimes critiqued and scorned as “uncertainty of salvation,” as if it were a bondage or something undesirable, or altogether lacking in the hope and joy and peace that we have in Christ. It’s not that at all. St. Paul clearly had a robust confidence in God’s mercy and of the moral assurance of salvation. But he was also very aware of human sin and self-delusion.

The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5 (“test” in the latter) is dokimazo. In KJV it is translated variously as examine, discern, prove, try, and approve. “Examine” in 2 Corinthians 13:5 is a different word: pirazo: usually translated as tempt or tempted. Dokimazo appears elsewhere in the New Testament in similar fashion:

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

2 Corinthians 8:7-8 Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine.

2 Corinthians 8:22 And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters, but who is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in you.

Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good,

1 Timothy 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons. 

ALMSGIVING: BEYOND MERELY TITHING 

Luke 3:11 And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”

Luke 19:8-9 And Zacchae’us stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

Acts 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

Acts 4:34-37 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.

Acts 11:29 And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea

Romans 12:8  he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now concerning the contribution for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come.

2 Corinthians 8:3-14 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints — and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. Accordingly we have urged Titus that as he had already made a beginning, he should also complete among you this gracious work. Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. And in this matter I give my advice: it is best for you now to complete what a year ago you began not only to do but to desire, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a man has, not according to what he has not. I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.

2 Corinthians 9:6-8 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.

1 Timothy 6:17-18 As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous,

Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

GENUFLECTION AND KNEELING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD

Genesis 18:1-2 And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth,

Genesis 24:52 When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the earth before the LORD.

1 Kings 8:54 Now as Solomon finished offering all this prayer and supplication to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven;

2 Chronicles 6:13 Solomon had made a bronze platform five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high, and had set it in the court; and he stood upon it. Then he knelt upon his knees in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven; 

2 Chronicles 7:3 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.”

2 Chronicles 20:18 Then Jehosh’aphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before the LORD, worshiping the LORD.

Ezra 9:5 And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God,

Nehemiah 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!

Ezekiel 11:13 And it came to pass, while I was prophesying, that Pelati’ah the son of Benai’ah died. Then I fell down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said, “Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou make a full end of the remnant of Israel?”

Daniel 6:10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.

Judith 13:17 All the people were greatly astonished, and bowed down and worshiped God, and said with one accord, “Blessed art thou, our God, who hast brought into contempt this day the enemies of thy people.”

Sirach 50:17 Then all the people together made haste and fell to the ground upon their faces to worship their Lord, the Almighty, God Most High.

2 Maccabees 3:15 The priests prostrated themselves before the altar in their priestly garments and called toward heaven upon him who had given the law about deposits, that he should keep them safe for those who had deposited them.

2 Maccabees 10:4 And when they had done this, they fell prostrate and besought the Lord that they might never again fall into such misfortunes, . . . 

Matthew 2:11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 8:2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”

Matthew 9:18 While he was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

Matthew 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Mark 1:40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

Romans 14:11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”

Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Revelation 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,”

Revelation 5:14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. 

Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round the throne and round the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

Revelation 11:16 And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God,

Revelation 19:4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who is seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!”

PRIESTLY BLESSINGS

Exodus 39:43 And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the LORD had commanded, so had they done it. And Moses blessed them. (cf. Gen 27:28-30; 28:1-6; 31:55; 47:7, 10; 48:14-20; 49:26, 28; Num 24:10; 2 Sam 19:39)

Leviticus 9:22-23 Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them; and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting; and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

Deuteronomy 33:1 This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. (cf. 33:13, 20, 24)

Joshua 14:13 Then Joshua blessed him; and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephun’neh for an inheritance. (cf. 22:6-7)

1 Kings 8:14 Then the king faced about, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, while all the assembly of Israel stood. (cf. 8:55)

1 Chronicles 16:2 And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD,

2 Chronicles 6:3 Then the king faced about, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, while all the assembly of Israel stood.

2 Chronicles 30:27 Then the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to his holy habitation in heaven.

Sirach 3:9 For a father’s blessing strengthens the houses of the children, but a mother’s curse uproots their foundations.

Sirach 36:17 Hearken, O Lord, to the prayer of thy servants, according to the blessing of Aaron for thy people, . . . 

Sirach 50:19-21 And the people besought the Lord Most High in prayer before him who is merciful, till the order of worship of the Lord was ended; so they completed his service. Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name; and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Luke 24:50-51 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.

Romans 4:6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: (cf. 4:9; Acts 13:34)

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchiz’edek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him;

Hebrews 11:20-21 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.

Hebrews 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

RELICS 

Exodus 29:37 Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy.

Exodus 30:28-29 . . . the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base; you shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy.

Leviticus 6:27 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy; . . . (cf. 6:18)

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

Elijah’s mantle is an example of a “second-class” relic: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person.

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

The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or “grace” in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead. His bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself.

Mark 5:25-30 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.” And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?”

Luke 8:43-48 And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one, came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased. And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!” But Jesus said, “Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.” And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Jesus did say also that her faith was what made her well, but the point is that it was also with the aid of a physical object that was in contact with Jesus: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing “power” to go “forth from him.” God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man’s eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). The Bible thus teaches that physical things related to a holy person in some fashion, can be instrumental in bringing about miracles. This is exactly how Catholics view relics.

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

St. Peter’s shadow is another example of a “second-class” relic. Jesus’ garments and saliva are also in this category.

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

This is a third-class relic: a thing that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons).

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: JoeJ10 (3-14-21); traditional use of incense in a Roman Catholic Mass, with a Thurible [Wikipedia / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: I provide the biblical basis for Catholic sacramentals, liturgy, devotions, Lent, relics, physical objects in worship, holy water, candles and incense, genuflection, etc.

2025-01-23T12:16:20-04:00

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:16 pm   By
0 Comments

Chapter 9 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

****
  1. How could Jesus be killed on a Friday and rise from the dead on Sunday, when Matthew 12:40 states: “so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”?

In Hebrew idiom, the phrase “one day and one night” meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated. We see this, for example, in 1 Samuel 30:12-13 (cf. Gen. 42:17-18). We know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday because Scripture tells us that the Sabbath (Saturday) as approaching (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31). The “day of preparation” is Friday, the day before the Sabbath: Saturday, and the Sabbath was considered to begin on sundown on Friday, as with Jews to this day. We also know from the biblical data that the discovery of his Resurrection was on a Sunday (Mark 16:1-2, 9; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). And we know that “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40) is synonymous in the Hebrew mind and the Bible with “after three days” (Mark 8:31) and “on the third day” (Matt. 16:21; 1 Cor. 15:4). Most references to the Resurrection say that it happened on the third day. In John 2:19-22, Jesus said that he would be raised up in three days (not on the fourth day). It would be like saying, “This is the third day I’ve been working on painting this room.” I could have started painting late Friday and made this remark on early Sunday.

For both the ancient Jews (6 PM to 6 PM days) and Romans (who reckoned days from midnight to midnight), the way to refer to three separate 24-hour days (in whole or in part) was to say, “days and nights.” We speak similarly in English idiom – just without adding the “nights” part. For example, we will say that we are off for a long weekend vacation, of “three days of fun” (Friday through Sunday or Saturday through Monday). But it is understood that this is not three full 24-hour days. Chances are we will depart part way through the first day and return before the third day ends. For a Saturday through Monday vacation, then, if we leave at 8 AM on Saturday and return at 10 PM on Monday night, literally that is less than three full days (it would be two 24-hour days and 14 more hours: ten short of three full days). Yet we speak of a “three-day vacation” and that we returned “after three days” or “on the third day.” Such descriptions are casually understood as non-literal. The ancient Jews and Romans simply added the clause “and nights” to such utterances, but understood them in the same way, as referring to any part of a whole 24-hour day. Thus the supposed “problem” or so-called “biblical contradiction” vanishes.

  1. Was a great stone rolled in front of the tomb (Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46), or was there no such stone (Luke 23:55; John 19:41)?

There was no stone yet in Luke 23:55 because this referred to the time when Jesus was placed in the tomb (see 23:53-54). When women went back two days later, they found the stone rolled away (24:1-2). John 19:41 simply doesn’t mention the stone, but in John 20:1 we learn that there was one, which was rolled away. Therefore, all four Gospels — taken together — note that the tomb had a stone in front of it, which was rolled away. This is not contradiction; rather, it’s complete harmony.

  1. Who witnessed this meeting (Matt. 27:62-66) when guards were sent to secure the tomb?

All it takes is one person, who communicated it to one or more of the evangelists or to oral traditions that helped formulate the Gospels. Two prime candidates were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both Pharisees and followers of, or sympathetic to Jesus. The meeting included “the Pharisees,” after all. Simply because we can’t determine this with certainty from the texts alone, doesn’t mean or logically follow that there were none, or that this person or persons could not have communicated it. All it would take is one person at the meeting who was a follower of Jesus, or later converted to Christianity. This is not at all implausible.

  1. Was a guard placed at Christ’s tomb the day after his burial (Matt. 27:65-66), or was there no guard (Mark 15:44-47; Luke 23:52-56; John 19:38-42)?

The argument from silence doesn’t prove anything, and saying nothing about a particular event can’t possibly be contradictory to statements about said event because it has no content. Mark, Luke, and John would have to state something like “no guard was ever placed at the tomb” for this to be a real contradiction. And of course, they do no such thing. Therefore, it’s yet another pseudo-, bogus “contradiction.” One would think that logic (like fresh air, cute puppies, and the joy of ice cream) is something where Christians and atheists could readily agree with each other. But sadly, that’s not the case: at least not in the “1001 biblical contradictions” sub-group of anti-theist atheists.

  1. Did the two Marys visit the tomb (Matt 28:1), or both Marys and Salome (Mark 16:1), or several women (Luke 24:10), or only Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)?

Matthew didn’t mention Salome. So what? That’s of no relevance. In light of Luke, we can conclude that several women (more than the two Marys) saw the empty tomb (though not necessarily the risen Jesus). None of this is inexorably contradictory. Mary Magdalene could have told these other women about the tomb and also the fact that she had seen the risen Jesus. This implies repeated trips to witness the empty tomb, which was easy because it was right outside of town. As for John, he may be describing an earlier, initial visit by Mary Magdalene alone: perhaps indicated by “while it was still dark.” Then she went again with others. The text never states that “only Mary” went to the tomb, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” did so. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.  As it is, no contradiction has been established.

  1. Was it dawn when Mary went to the tomb (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2) or dark (John 20:1)?

Quite obviously, Mary Magdalene made an earlier pre-dawn visit, which appears to be the very first visit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Later on, several other women visited, along with her. But many skeptics seem to have the odd, inexplicable view that no one could have possibly visited Jesus’ tomb (where the greatest miracle in history had just occurred) more than once.

  1. Was the stone still in place when women visited Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:1-2), or had it already been removed (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)?

It is readily observed also that the women saw the stone already rolled away when they arrived, as reported in Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1. So how does the believer in biblical inspiration explain away what seems at first glance to be a glaring contradiction in Matthew’s account? Well, as is often the case and necessity, one has to examine the Greek word(s) involved and also the tense. Matthew employs an aorist participle, translated in some English versions in the English past perfect tense. For example, Weymouth states that an angel “had come and rolled back the stone”; Young’s Literal Translation has “having come, did roll away the stone.” New American Standard Bible / Amplified Bible: “earthquake had occurred”; Williams: “Now there had been a great earthquake”; Wuest: “an angel of the Lord having descended out of heaven and having come . . .” It’s true that this is a minority of translations, but it’s significant, and shows that such a rendering is quite possible and permissible, according to the informed and educated judgment of these language scholars / translators. Moreover, the translations of Young, Wuest, and the Amplified Bible were specifically designed to bring out the precise and exact meaning of the Greek, including the sense of tense.

  1. Was an angel sitting on the stone at the entrance of the tomb (Matt. 28:2) or was a man sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)?

There were two angels (they are often called “men” in Holy Scripture) or more present in or near the tomb: as specifically affirmed in Luke 24:3-4 and John 20:12. Or Matthew was referring to the specific time when the stone was actually rolled away. As explained over and over in this book, different accounts do not contradict unless they explicitly rule out any other event than what they describe. In this instance, there could have been one angel inside the tomb, and later, two; the same for outside the tomb, or one angel could be seen in the tomb and a second hidden from the observer, etc. Any number of scenarios are logically possible, and logical inconsistency cannot be proven.

  1. Did the eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus run to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8), or tell the eleven and all the rest (Luke 24:9), or say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8)?

Matthew and Luke are non-contradictory.  The third statement is a well-known atheist canard, but it presupposes that Mark ends with that verse. It does not. It continues on to verse 20. Mark 16:9-20 is a disputed text among many Christians. That discussion is too complex and involved to delve into here, but if one accepts the arguments for the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20, then it’s consistent with the other Gospels and doesn’t contradict them. Even the words “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” (16:8) suggested only a temporary state, out of initial fear.

  1. Could Jesus be touched after his Resurrection (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39) or not (John 20:17)?

John 20:17 in KJV, which this particular atheist skeptic utilizes, has the phrase “Touch me not”. But that’s an unfortunate translation. RSV has “Do not hold me.” Baptist linguist A. T. Robertson, in his volume, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930) explains it:

Touch me not (mh mou aptou). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan) and worship (prosekunhsan) as we read in Matthew 28:9.

Hence, almost all modern English translations have “hold” or “cling” or suchlike. And with this clarification, the supposed contradiction vanishes.

  1. How does Matthew 28:10 not contradict Luke 24:49, regarding Jesus’ instructions about what they should do when he rose from the dead?

In Matthew 28:10, Jesus tells his disciples to “go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” The disciples did see Jesus in Galilee after he was risen (Matt. 28:16-17; John 21:1). In Luke 24:49 Jesus told them to “stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” This is “apples and oranges.” Matthew is talking about post-Resurrection appearances. Luke’s passage, on the other hand, which describes what occurred after what Matthew described, has to do with the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which happened right in Jerusalem. It’s described by the same writer, Luke, in Acts 2:1-4 (cf. language of Luke 1:35; 9:1; see also the related passage Acts 1:8). In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascends to heaven. Likewise, in Luke 24:51, He ascends to heaven. Both passages describe the same event, and are written by the same author. Matthew and Luke + Acts, then, refer to completely different things. But it’s fascinating that this couplet is somehow thought to be a contradiction, isn’t it?

  1. How could the disciples doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matt. 28:17), while the Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible (Matt. 27:62-66)?

“Some [not all] doubted” (as Matt. 28:17 states), and for a time, yes. It was the typical human skepticism regarding miracles, among “some” of the disciples. The enemies of Jesus believed no such thing. They called Jesus an “impostor” (Matt. 27:63) and the gospel and Christianity a “fraud” (27:64). They were worried that the disciples would “go and steal him away” (27:64) and fake his Resurrection, which is why they asked for a guard in front of the tomb. I search in vain for any “contradiction” here. It’s literally impossible for it to be a contradiction because this is referring to two completely different groups of men. What it actually is (if the challenge were actually accurate: which it isn’t) is a failed attempt to establish a significant oddity or anomaly (Pharisees believing in Jesus while his own disciples doubted him). The problem is that it does so by making a false blanket statement about the disciples and an equally untrue description of the Pharisees and their allies. This won’t do. It’s lousy, if not outright dishonest, argumentation. Seeking in vain to embarrass Christians and to mock the Bible, they only embarrass themselves, which is only poetic justice, from where we sit.

  1. Did Joseph of Arimathea boldly ask for the body of Jesus (Mark 15:43) or do so secretly (John 19:38)?

The two attributes aren’t mutually exclusive. One can be both bold and operate in secret. Every special forces raid is of such a nature, as is every clandestine espionage assignment. It was “bold” to ask Pilate (not the nicest guy) this, whether it was in secret or not. This is a classic example of a desperate, trumped-up alleged “contradiction.” But I can assure everyone that it’s authentic. Some skeptic came up with this. I didn’t invent it.

  1. Was Jesus laid in a nearby tomb (Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41) or in Joseph’s new tomb (Matt. 27:59-60)?

These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Matthew merely adds the information that it was Joseph’s own planned tomb. Someone not asserting a thing consistent with what it does assert, doesn’t contradict another asserting that same thing.

  1. How could the women expect to persuade the Roman guards to let them anoint Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1)?

This presupposes that the women knew there was a guard. They had observed Jesus being placed in the tomb on Friday (Mark 15:46-47; Matt. 27:57-61), but the guard was not posted till Saturday, the “next day” (Matt. 27:62).

  1. Did the women who saw the risen Jesus tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark 16:8 states, “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.” Is this not contradictory?

In Mark 16:8, the risen Jesus had not yet been seen. But Mark 16:9-10 asserts: “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him.” Elsewhere I argued that Mary Magdalene first saw the risen Jesus earlier in the morning on Sunday. Matthew doesn’t declare that the women “immediately” told the disciples. It states, “they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples” (28:8). Therefore, a gap in time is possible that is harmonious with the data of Mark 16:8-10 and an earlier visit by Mary Magdalene. Likewise, Luke 24:10 reports that they “told this to the apostles” with no indication that it was “immediate.” No undeniable contradiction can be asserted, based on the false premise in the charge regarding Mark’s account, and the fact that all three accounts imply, prima facie, in my opinion, that the disciples were told fairly soon.

  1. Did the Ascension take place while the disciples were seated at a table (Mark 16:14-19), or outdoors at Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), or outdoors on the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:9-12)?

The account in Mark is an example of what is called “compression” or “telescoping”: literary techniques which were common, especially in ancient literature, and sometimes appear in the Bible. The text simply “jumps” to a future occurrence. It’s obvious that the disciples weren’t indoors watching the Ascension, for how could they see Jesus being “taken up into heaven” if so (Mark 16:19)? The present-day Bethany is located on the Mount of Olives, a little less than a mile from the Chapel of the Ascension. But Bible commentators note that it was the district of Bethany being referred to in Luke 24:50, which included the Mount of Olives. There was both a town and a district, just as is the case of my own present town in Michigan, which has a township around it with the same name. It was a system of toparchies, dating from the reign of Solomon We know this from the Old Testament, which contains (in RSV) the word “district” eighteen times in four different books (1 Kings; 2 Chron., Neh., Ezek.), including “district of Jerusalem” (Neh. 3:9, 12). Of particular note is Ezekiel 45:7, which refers to “the land on both sides of the holy district and the property of the city . . .” And in the New Testament, references to “district” (in Israel) occur six times in Matthew and Luke (e.g., “district of Caesarea Philippi”: Matt. 16:13). Mark 8:27 also references the “villages of Caesarea Philippi.”

  1. How could Luke know about Jesus talking to Herod during his trial (Luke 23:7-12)? And these speeches seem to have been remarkably well-preserved.

What an odd choice of example, since “chief priests and the scribes stood by” (Luke 23:10) as did Herod’s “soldiers” (Luke 23:11). All it would take was one or two of these (perhaps one who was a Christian or later became one) to report about this encounter, which entered into either oral tradition or directly into one of the Gospels. But as it is, Luke records not a single word that Herod said (so much for an absurdly alleged “remarkably well-preserved” verbal account); he only notes that “he questioned him at some length” (Luke 23:9). Since only Luke reports this incident, there was no secret or “miraculous” knowledge involved. All that is reported is that Herod questioned Jesus. We’re supposed to believe that no follower of Jesus could have possibly known that that happened? It’s ridiculous. It took only one follower to follow the irate persecuting crowds with Jesus from a distance and see them enter into Herod’s palace.

  1. Did the women buy burial materials before the Sabbath (Luke 23:56) or after (Mark 16:1)?

Luke 23:56 doesn’t assert this. It says they “returned [back home], and prepared spices and ointments.” Then they brought them to the tomb on Sunday (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). Pondering this sterling example, one wonders whether this biblical skeptic even read the passages in his or her zealous rush to find a “gotcha!” contradiction to embarrass Christians with. This one abysmally fails as an objection, and so do all the others detailed in this book.

  1. Were the disciples frightened when they saw Jesus (Luke 24:36-37) or glad when they first saw him (John 20:20)?

In Luke it was because they (just two of them, not “the disciples”) “supposed that they saw a spirit”: an event which almost always causes fear in recorded instances in Scripture. Then Jesus showed them his hands and feet (24:39) and they settled down. The text gives no indication of this being the first time they saw the risen Jesus. In John (a different incident, and seemingly the first time, in context) they were glad for the same reason: because he “showed them his hands and his side”: quickly proving that he was Jesus, so they wouldn’t be afraid. The text informs us: “Then the disciples were glad . . .” No contradiction exists, once the texts are actually analyzed and examined more closely (which the atheist skeptics, alas, never seem to have the time and/or desire to do).

  1. Was Jesus’ body anointed (John 19:39-40) or not (Mark 15:46 to 16:1; Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?

Mark and Luke don’t deny that Jesus’ body was anointed. If they don’t, there is no necessary contradiction. I submit that the women simply weren’t aware that at least some spices had been applied (as indicated in John 19:39-40). In any event, no contradiction has been proven.

  1. Did Nicodemus prepare Jesus’ body with spices (John 19:39-40) or, failing to notice this, did the women bring spices later (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-56)?

What happened is (humorously) explained right in the challenge! The women failed to see that Jesus’ body was prepared with spices, because the Sabbath was quickly approaching (John 19:42) — during which time this work would be disallowed –, so that they probably concluded that there hadn’t been enough time for such preparation. The women saw that Jesus was laid out with a linen shroud (Luke 23:53-55), but wouldn’t necessarily know if he had been anointed with spices. Therefore, they prepared the spices and ointments (23:56) and returned after the Sabbath to apply them (24:1).

  1. If Mary’s tomb visit (John 20:1) was earlier than the visit described in Matthew, why did she not encounter any guards?

Because, as the same passage states, she “saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” An angel had already removed the stone and as a result, “the guards trembled and became like dead men” (Matt. 28:4). Presumably they also fled as a result (likely for fear of their lives, for the penalty for not properly guarding something was death in Roman law); therefore, Mary didn’t see them.

  1. Did Peter did go into the tomb, while another disciple stooped and looked inside (John 20:3-6), or did he not enter the tomb and only stoop to look inside (Luke 24:12)?

Luke 24:12 is a disputed verse, not found in the earliest manuscripts, which is why RSV doesn’t even include it. In other words, it can’t be considered as part of the New Testament. Therefore, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of consistency of accounts or reputed lack thereof.

  1. Did the women stay outside the tomb (John 20:11) or enter it (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:3)?

John refers to Mary’s pre-dawn visit alone, and doesn’t refer to multiple “women” (the alleged charge is incorrect in that way), but only to Mary Magdalene. Mark and Luke refer to another visit of Mary Magdalene with other women (Mary the mother of James, and Salome: Mark 16:1, and “Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them”: Luke 24:10), when (unlike Mary’s first visit) they did enter the tomb. It’s different things happening at different times and hence, no contradiction. I know it must be frustrating for the skeptic (who is convinced of massive biblical “contradictions” yet can never find an undeniable one), but logic is what it is. I didn’t make it up.

  1. Did Mary Magdalene first see the risen Jesus at the tomb (John 20:11-15) or on her way home (Matt. 28:8-10)?

I propose that John records a pre-dawn Sunday visit by Mary Magdalene, which was the first recorded post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to anyone. She returned later with other women and they all saw him. But the text in Matthew doesn’t claim that this was the first time she saw the risen Jesus.

  1. Was Jesus’ first Resurrection appearance right at the tomb (John 20:12-14) or fairly near the tomb (Matt. 28:8-9) or on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-16)?

Mark doesn’t say one way or the other. The others don’t indicate that their account was the “first” appearance, so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a “contradiction” impossible to undeniably construct).

  1. Did Mary Magdalene recognize the risen Jesus? Of course she would! She’d known him for years. Matthew says that she did. But John (20:14-15) makes clear that she didn’t. How can this be?

John also makes it clear that it was “early, while it was still dark” (20:1). The same “dark” scenario is described in 21:4: “Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.”

  1. Why was the stone rolled away if Jesus could enter locked rooms (John 20:19)?

It wasn’t rolled away so Jesus could “get out,” but rather, to be a graphic visual demonstration that he rose from the dead.

  1. Were there, at the time of the Ascension, about 120 Christian brethren (Acts 1:15) or about 500 (1 Cor. 15:6)?

Acts doesn’t claim that that is the entire number of Christians in the world; only the amount in that place, who were living together. It’s sheer speculation to assert otherwise. Jesus appeared for forty days after he rose again (Acts 1:3), and so 500 Christians could have easily existed by the end of that period, seeing how wildly enthusiastic the early Christians were to spread the Good News of his Resurrection. 500 doesn’t contradict 120, as long as the latter is not stated to be the sum total of all Christians. Paul doesn’t say 500 is the grand total, either.

  1. Did twelve disciples see the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), or eleven: Thomas not being present (Matt. 28:16-17; John 20:19-25)?

In 1 Corinthians, either it was after the departed (and dead) Judas’ replacement with Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), so there were again twelve, or the title “twelve” was being used as a description of the group, which is done several times in the New Testament (including in John 20:24). Matthew 28 describes a time right before Jesus’ Ascension, before Judas had been replaced. Hence, “eleven” is used in the text (including Thomas). John uses “twelve” as the group title, even though Judas had by then departed, and there would have been literally eleven disciples, and ten without Thomas (John 20:24 again). No problem here (as always). In English usage, we also sometimes describe groups with a certain number, which isn’t literal. For example, the Big Ten Conference in NCAA (college) football actually has fourteen members. It began with ten. Yet it continues to be called “Big Ten” and not “Big Fourteen.” Is that a “contradiction”? No; it’s not literal, figurative usage, and non-literal language in a well-known established title. And so it was like this with the disciples in some passages, because they were first (and famously) numbered twelve.

  1. How come Paul only mentions that Jesus was “buried” (1 Cor. 15:4) and doesn’t mention an empty tomb?

This is one of the more bizarre charges (and, like all of these, was actually brought up by a real, live atheist (whose name shall be kept secret for the sake of charity). Right after Paul noted that Jesus was buried, he added, “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time . . .” (1 Cor, 15:4-6). In Colossians 2:12 he states that “God, . . . raised him from the dead.” That is an empty tomb. He already mentioned that he was buried. In order to rise from the dead and to appear to others in many different places, the tomb necessarily (by virtue of logic) had to be empty. In Acts 13:29-31 Paul wrote: “they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem . . .” There’s the tomb: specifically mentioned. And if Jesus appeared risen in Galilee, he could hardly have still been in his tomb, could he? This is an exceedingly odd objection. There are many many more references to Jesus’ Resurrection in Paul’s writings (Acts 17:2-3, 30-31; 26:22-23; Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:3-8, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8).

  1. Was Jesus first seen by Cephas (Peter), then the other ten disciples (1 Cor. 15:5), or by the two Marys (Matt. 28:1, 8-9), or by Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:1, 14-15), or Cleopas and others (Luke 24:17-18), or the disciples as a group (Acts 10:40-41)?

1 Corinthians doesn’t claim that he “first” appeared to Cephas, but that he appeared to him before he appeared to the other disciples: a completely different proposition. Peter is singled out as a witness not because he was the absolutely first person to see the risen Jesus, but rather, because he was the leader of the disciples and the early church (see the first half of the book of Acts). Mark 16:9 actually does expressly affirm that Mary Magdalene was the “first.” And so she was. John’s account is consistent with that notion. Does Matthew contradict this because of the second Mary? Not necessarily. Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages. For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of his appearing to her, except with another woman, too. Luke 24 has the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus. Nothing definitely indicates they were the first; indeed, they could not have been because other Gospels record Mary Magdalene and the other Mary seeing Jesus early in the morning on the first Easter Sunday, whereas in this account it is said that the time was “toward evening” with the day being “far spent” (24:29). Acts states that the disciples were in the select group to whom Jesus appeared, as opposed to “all the people.” But it doesn’t say they were absolutely the first, and doesn’t therefore rule out Mary Magdalene being the first person, which is expressly stated in Mark. Conclusion?: all of these passages are perfectly harmonious and pose no problem for biblical infallibility or self-consistent accuracy and trustworthiness.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: Resurrection of Christ, by Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: Ch. 9 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

2025-01-23T12:02:28-04:00

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:02 pm   By
0 Comments

Chapter 2 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****

1.Why did Matthew take the very unusual step of including four women (Matt. 1:3, 5-6) in Joseph’s genealogy? Isn’t that a contradiction over against other biblical genealogies? 

The four women were Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. But this is not “very unusual” in the Bible. 1 Chronicles refers to more than fifty women in its genealogies (see, e.g., 2:1, 4, 16-17, 46; 3:2, 5; 4:18; 8:8-11).  

  1. Were there 28 generations (Matt. 1:17) or 43 generations (Luke 3:23-31) from David to Jesus?

Scholars familiar with biblical genealogies inform us that they routinely abbreviate and omit names considered to be unimportant according to their immediate purpose. No genealogy should be assumed to be literally continuous unless external evidence is brought to bear which proves it to be so.

  1. Does God lead us into temptation (Matt. 6:13) or tempt no one (James 1:13)?

This is another understandable, “respectable” objection. James 1:13 is literally true. The difficulty is interpreting Matthew 6:13, which seems to contradict it. “Lead us not into temptation” from the Lord’s Prayer or “Our Father” can be understood as a poetic, rhetorical way of expressing the notion: “keep us from temptation” or “we know (in faith) that you won’t lead us into temptation.” Hence, lovers will say to each other, “don’t break my heart”: which usually means, literally, “I believe you won’t break my heart like those others have.” In other words, the literal “won’t” is changed to the rhetorical, more emotional, “don’t.” Instead of saying, “please do this [good thing]” we change it to requesting the person to “please don’t do [the opposite bad thing]”. The poetic Psalms, which are usually first person pleas or praise to God, offer many analogical parallels (Ps. 38:21; 40:11: “Do not thou, O Lord, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me!” [both senses in one verse]; 44:23; 70:5; 138:8; 140:8).

  1. Are we to not judge at all (Matt. 7:1-2), or judge when it is necessary (1 John 4:1-3)?

Matthew 7:1-2 is one of many scriptural proverbial statements, that allows and presupposes exceptions. Matthew is expressing a sort of “reverse golden rule.” If we judge harshly, unfairly, uncharitably, then chances are such judgment will come back to us at some point. It doesn’t follow, however, that no one can ever rightly judge at any time. 1 John 4:1-3 is actually about spiritual discernment, so it’s a non sequitur and no contradiction by the same token. In any event, there are many verses about perfectly justifiable and righteous non-sinful judging (Luke 11:19, 31-32; 12:57; 22:30; John 7:24; 1 Cor. 10:15; 11:13).

  1. Is it true that we can “Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you” (Matt. 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-10), or that if we “ask” we’ll be refused and won’t find, and will be refused entrance (Luke 13:24-27)?

The first statement provides utterances from Jesus that are general, proverbial truths: qualified elsewhere in Scripture, in literal passages. For example: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James 4:3); “if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” (1 John 5:14). Luke 13:24-27 is very different, and is specifically about those who are reprobate or damned. They had every chance to repent during their lives and be saved, but now it is too late; it’s time to be judged; the game’s up for them, so at that point they can’t seek any more. No conflict here . . .

  1. Was Peter’s mission to preach to the Jews (Matt. 10:2, 5-6; Gal. 2:7) or to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7)?

At first, the mission of Jesus and His disciples was to preach to their fellow Jews, as Matthew makes clear.  Later, St. Peter’s emphasis (but not exclusively) was still to the Jews but his overall mission expanded and included Gentiles, as Acts 15:7 indicates. Indeed, the entirety of Acts chapter 10 as about the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles, led by Peter (as Paul had just recently become a Christian). Likewise, Paul’s emphasis was on the Gentiles: though not exclusively in his case, either, as he regularly debated in the synagogues (Acts 9:20; 13:5, 43; 14:1; 17:1-4, 10-12, 17) and otherwise with Jews (9:22; 19:10, 17; 20:21), proclaiming the gospel. So both reached out to both groups, but emphasized one group (more or less a “division of labor”). Emphases and expansions of missions and goals of this sort are simply not contradictions. It’s not contradictory for Peter to exclusively preach to the Jews and first and then “branch out” to include the Gentiles. It’s this wooden “either/or” mentality of the skeptic that makes them falsely believe contradictions are occurring. And rank ignorance of scriptural teachings and motifs are constantly in play as well.

  1. Why did Jesus say that John the Baptist was the prophet Elijah (Matt. 11:9; 17:12-13), whereas John the Baptist said that he was not the prophet Elijah (John 1:21)?

The passages in Matthew are in the sense of prototype: John the Baptist was a type of Elijah; the last prophet, who had the same role as he did: to cause Israel to repent. Luke 1:17 makes this clear. An angel says about John: “he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah”. The repeated New Testament use of “son of David” for Jesus is an instance of the same thing, because David was a prototype of the Messiah. Jeremiah proclaimed, some 400 years after David’s death: “But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Jer. 30:9; cf. 33:15; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos. 3:5). John the Baptist himself spoke literally in John 1:21, in denying that he was Elijah, returned from the dead. Since these are instances of both metaphorical and literal expression, it’s no contradiction.

  1. If all people come into judgment (Matt. 12:36; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27; 1 Pet. 1:17; Jude 14-15; Rev. 20:12-13) how can believers not come into judgment (John 5:24)?

John 5:24 means that a believer will be saved (“has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life”). “Judgment” there has the specific meaning of “judged as worthy of damnation” or more broadly, “conviction” in a legal sense. But everyone will be judged in the wider sense of having to give account before God, Who then declares if we are saved or not. John 5:24 doesn’t conflict with that at all, so this is much ado about nothing.

  1. Must we forgive seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22), or is forgiveness not possible in cases of renewed sin (Heb. 6:4-6)?

Yes, human beings must always be willing to forgive: to have that spirit, because all of us have been forgiven by God. But God is not obliged to forgive forever. He provides enough grace for anyone to be saved, but if they reject it, that’s their choice, and they make forgiveness impossible to grant, because it must be preceded by acceptance and repentance. That’s what Hebrews 6 addresses: those who have received this grace and who were on the road to salvation, but then rejected it. It’s then impossible, as long as they continue rebelling and rejecting God and His grace.

  1. Why would we pray that we don’t enter into temptation (Matt. 26:41) if temptation is a joy (James 1:2)?

James 1:2 refers not to temptation (hence, this is “apples and oranges” again), but to “trials”. The “joy” that comes through trials is spelled out: “the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:3-4). This “testing” need not be a temptation at all. I could have a rock fall on my head from an avalanche. That would be a “test” of my faith, but not a temptation. Temptation is allowing ourselves to fall into being led astray by sexual immorality (lust), greed, gluttony, etc. It proceeds from the inside: in our soul. The Bible never teaches that temptation is a joy. That’s proven by a Bible search of both words together.

  1. How come Jesus told his followers to go and baptize (Matt. 28:19), yet Paul said he was not sent to baptize (1 Cor. 1:17), and did nevertheless baptize, at least in one instance (1 Cor.1:16)?

This is division of labor. Paul’s specialty was evangelism and dealing with hard-nosed unbelievers. He could assign others to baptize new converts (just as Jesus himself had done). It’s not difficult to do. No biggie and no contradiction. Paul baptized one household, as an exception to his rule, and couldn’t remember baptizing anyone else.

  1. Did Jesus cure Peter’s mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper (Mark 1:30-42; Luke 4:38 to 5:13) or after (Matt. 8:1-15)?

None of the Synoptic authors are concerned with always presenting events in a chronological sequence. They have different emphases. Matthew mostly organizes by topic (like an encyclopedia). Luke emphasizes geography as his arranging method (like an atlas). Mark borrows from both of them, sometimes following one order and sometimes another (similar to recounting stories from memory). The evangelists did not write or think exactly as we do today. Their stories are not literal travelogues or chronological biographies, but rather, collections of the sayings of Jesus and events in his life that they deemed to be the most important to the specific audiences they had in mind. We don’t know the exact sequence of events pertaining to the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, because the Synoptic Gospels simply were relatively unconcerned with strictly chronological order. Once we understand this, it’s plain that this is not an issue at all, let alone a supposed “contradiction.”

  1. Is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit an unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29) or are all sins forgivable (Acts 13:39; Col. 2:13; 1 John 1:9)?

Generally speaking, yes: all sins are forgivable. But as in most things, there is an exception. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of God altogether, which in a sense is not “forgivable” because the person hasn’t repented and asked to be forgiven, by the definition of having rejected God. In that sense, it can’t be forgiven, because “it takes two.” One could say, as an analogy, “all horses are able to drink from the stream. But I can’t force my horse to do so if it doesn’t want to or choose to do so. I can only bring it to the stream. There are things that are made impossible by the contrary will of the creature involved. God can offer the free gift of grace and salvation to all, but we have to accept it. Once free will is present, rebellion is always possible and can’t be altogether avoided.

  1. Mark represents a more Gentile attitude in quoting the Old Testament as “Moses said” (Mark 7:10) rather than “God said” (Matt. 15:4). All Jews would agree with the latter practice. Matthew, a Jew, would never have attributed the Ten Commandments to Moses.

Mark is also widely believed to be derived mostly from Peter: quite Jewish. This is much ado about nothing. The Hebrews thought in “both/and” terms (St. Paul’s writings often reflect this). For them, the Law of Moses or Mosaic law was God’s Law.  The two are identical. It was dictated by God to Moses, who delivered it to the ancient Hebrews. The context of Mark 7:10 clearly shows this. While 7:10 has Jesus referring to “Moses said” while referring to the Ten Commandments, both 7:8 and 7:9 use the terminology “the commandment of God” in referring to the same thing. 7:10 refers to the prior notions by starting with the connecting word “For.” 7:13 also references “the word of God” in discussing the same general topic. Nor is the converse true about Matthew, who makes references to Moses’ teachings and his (God’s) Law as well:

Matthew 8:4 [Jesus – also a Jewish man — speaking] . . . offer the gift that Moses commanded . . .

Matthew 19:8 He [Jesus] said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

The parallel passage in Mark about divorce has Jesus saying:

Mark 10:3-5 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”  They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.”  But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”

Both books make reference to Moses commanding that which was God’s Law given to him. They both do both things. It’s not one vs. the other. St. Paul continues the “both/and” practice in his epistles, since he refers to the “law of Moses” twice (Acts 13:39; 1 Cor. 9:9) and the synonymous “law of God” twice (Rom. 7:22, 25). Moreover, in the Old Testament (not including the Deuterocanon), “law of Moses” is used 13 times, and “law of God” four times, as well as the similar “law of the Lord” another 18 times. We must conclude, then, that this point of argument is a false dichotomy. Context and cross-referencing demolish it.

  1. Did Jesus desire that no sign should be given (Mark 8:12), or that none would be except for that of Jonah (Matt. 12:39; Luke 11:29), or
    that many signs should take place (John 20:30; Acts 2:22)?

The difference of “strategy” has to do with willingness to believe vs. unwillingness. Jesus knew who would accept His signs and miracles and who would not. With people who did not and would not (usually the “scribes and Pharisees”), he refused to do miracles and signs. This is made clear in the Bible (Mark 8:11-12; Matt. 12:39; 16:4). In Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:27-31), he explains why sometimes it does no good to perform miracles. This also foretold the widespread rejection of the miracle of his own Resurrection. Belief or willingness to accept the evidence of a miracle is also tied to Jesus’ willingness to perform miracles (Matt. 13:58: “he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief”). With the common folk, it was entirely different, and so we also see a verse like John 6:2 (“And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.”). Because the atheist hyper-critic refuses to acknowledge or understand these simple distinctions, all of a sudden we have yet another trumped-up, so-called “contradiction” where there is none at all. E for [futile] effort, though . . .

  1. Mark 10:19 misquotes the Ten Commandments and inserts an extra commandment: “Do not defraud.”

This is just silly. Jesus is adding nothing. He lists the five famous “thou shalt nots”: murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and then says “do not defraud” instead of “do not covet.” It’s essentially the same thing. Merriam-Webster defines defraud as “to deprive of something by deception.” This is what comes as a result of covetousness. The same source defines covet as “to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably.” Jesus is always forward-looking in his application of the Jewish Law. This is similar to his teaching on the Sermon on the Mount: always going deeper: “You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28). I think a similar “deeper analysis / getting to the heart or root of the matter” is going on here, as if Jesus is saying (by strong implication): “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not defraud’ [see, e.g., Lev. 19:13] But I say to you that every one who covets has already committed defrauding in his heart.” Thus, “defraud not” is not “an extra commandment”: it’s an application of one or more existing ones, just as Jesus taught that lust was a variant — and indeed precursor — of adultery. He wanted to convey the heart-level roots of sin; not just the outward observance of moral laws.

  1. Mark 11:10 refers to “the kingdom of our father David.” No Jew would have said that. The father of the nation was Abraham. Not all Jews were sons of David.

Nonsense. There is Jewish / Hebrew precedent. In 2 Kings 16:2 (cf. 2 Chron. 28:1) refers to “his father David” in relation to King Ahaz, who reigned some 250 years after David. Acts 4:25 (Peter speaking) also references “our father David.”  “Your father Abraham” only appears once in the Old Testament. “Father Abraham” appears seven times in the New Testament, including four times from the Gentile Luke. The writers of 2nd Kings (Jewish tradition held that it was Jeremiah) and 2nd Chronicles (Jewish and Christian tradition say it was Ezra) did, and so did St. Peter (all Jews). Therefore, Mark can do so. He’s simply following that Jewish tradition. Besides, Mark uses the phrase in the context of Palm Sunday, where the people saying this thought the messianic kingdom might be arising (Mark 11:10), and it is well known that David is also the prominent prototype of the Messiah in the Old Testament (” ‘What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David’ “: Matt. 22:42). “Son of David” (in this vein) is applied to Jesus 16 times in the Gospels: ten of these in Matthew, including his description: “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). Yet we are to believe that Mark is somehow expressing himself in a non-Jewish way, by referring to “our father David”? It just isn’t so.

  1. Mark 12:31-34 subordinates the Torah to love, and to the kingdom, in contrast to Matthew 22:36-40, where Matthew, as a Jew, put a far greater emphasis on the Law.

I don’t see much difference at all. After all, in the passage from Matthew above, Jesus doesn’t even cite the Ten Commandments. Rather, He cites a portion of the Law that sums up “all the law and the prophets” (22:40): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (22:37). Then he stresses love: “a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (22:39). He does similarly in another passage: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt. 23:23). That’s certainly putting the emphasis on love, rather than merely legal transactions. Is Mark really much different than this? Mark 12:31-34 is basically the same as Matthew 22:37-39 above, and then Jesus adds: “to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). The Law was meant to focus on love all along, and this is explicitly taught in the Old Testament, too. If it’s thought that Mark is denigrating the Old Testament sacrificial system, he is saying nothing that hasn’t already been taught under the old covenant. So, for example:

Amos 5:21-24 I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Jeremiah 6:20 . . . Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.

When His people obeyed his commands, however, then God was pleased with the same sacrifices (Isa. 56:6-7: “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar”; Jer. 17:24-26: “But if you listen to me . . .”; Mal. 1:11: “a pure offering”; many others). Therefore, we see nothing “new” here in Mark, which is no different than Matthew. These themes had been present in Judaism and the existing Bible for many hundreds of years.

  1. Mark 14:13 states that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water, whom they would follow in order to obtain a “guest room” for the Passover meal (14:13-14). Matthew 26:18 disagrees with the idea that a Jewish man would do a woman’s work.

Luke 22:10 also indicates a man carrying water. Matthew simply doesn’t mention it. Omission of a matter is not logically the same as a contradiction. Indeed, it was customary in ancient Israel for women to carry water jugs on their heads. But men were not forbidden to do so. Hence, Deuteronomy 29:11 refers to “he who draws your water.” In the Jewish sect of the Essenes, men carried water on their heads. They had a community on Jerusalem, and one of Jerusalem’s gates was called “the Gate of the Essenes”. Jesus knew that if the disciples saw one of these Essene men and followed him through the streets of the city, that they would find a guest room; especially since the Essenes followed a different calendar for the Jewish feasts. That would mean that a room would be more readily available in their region of Jerusalem. Thus, what seems to be a trivial detail, actually was a very practical suggestion.

  1. How could the Holy Spirit be with John the Baptist before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and with his mother Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zechariah (Luke 1:67), and Simeon (Luke 2:25); indeed to anyone for the asking (Luke 11:13), whereas the Bible also teaches that the Holy Spirit didn’t come into the world until after Jesus had departed (John 7:39; 16:7; Acts 1:3-8)?

The Bible has many passages about the Holy Spirit being especially present with holy and especially “chosen” people, in both Testaments. That explains the first four instances. Anyone can search “Holy Spirit” in the Bible and find many more. In Luke, Jesus was referring to that and also anticipating what was to come: which was every Christian believer being indwelt with the Holy Spirit as a matter of course: from the time of baptism (John 3:5-6; Acts 2:38; 9:17-18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Titus 3:5). Acts 1 and 2 are about the Day of Pentecost: the beginning of the Christian Church and the ability of every Christian to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference: not that no one ever had the Spirit before, but that all Christians could henceforth. This was what John 7:39 and 16:7 were referring to. When the former verse refers to “as yet the Spirit had not been given,” it doesn’t mean that the Spirit never was given to anyone before, but that all believers would soon receive it, as indicated by its words, “the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive.” It’s developing Christian theology. Developments are not contradictory because they always build on what went before.

  1. If Jesus said that all men will be saved (John 3:17), why is it stated that only 144,000 virgin men will be (Rev. 14:1-4)?

Jesus says no such thing. The meaning of the words in John 3:17 (not Jesus’ words, but the narrator John’s) is universal atonement: that all who wish to be — who are willing to be disciples of Jesus with all that that entails — can be saved. This is biblical teaching. In context it’s crystal clear that neither he nor John is saying all men will be saved, but rather, those who believe in Jesus. Jesus said, referring to himself: “whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:15). John adds that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (3:16) and “he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (3:18). Revelation 14 never asserts that this was the sum total of all who are saved. It specifically calls them the “first fruits” (14:4); in other words, there are many more to come and these are only the “first batch.” The claim that this is all the saved is simply read into the passage (eisegesis) without warrant by this skeptic. This is a very incompetent, embarrassing, and almost inexcusable proposed “contradiction.”

  1. How is it that Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him (John 6:37), yet also said that many who come to him will be cast aside (Matt. 7:21-23)?

In John 6:37, Jesus refers to “All that the Father gives me will come to me”: in other words, this refers to predestination and election, which is in conjunction with our free will acceptance, repentance, and cooperation. The latter part of the verse is conditional upon this prerequisite. These are the ones who will be saved in the final analysis and go to heaven. Jesus (being God and therefore omniscient) knows this, so of course he won’t cast them out. Christianity doesn’t teach universalism (all are saved); it teaches universal atonement (God’s mercy and grace are available for all who repent and accept them as a free gift, and continually cooperate through good works and sanctification). Matthew 7:21-23, on the other hand, refers to false, deceitful supposed “followers” of Christ who really aren’t. They haven’t repented and allowed God to transform them in grace, and so they simply mouth the words, “Lord, Lord” and “Jesus.” They “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” as we Christians say. But God knows his own (John 10:14) and he knows who is faking it. God knows men’s hearts. We can’t fool Him with our games and pretensions and outrageous hypocrisies. That’s what this is about. The biblical teaching is that Jesus accepts all who are sincerely repentant and willing to follow Him as disciples, and who persevere and don’t fall away till the end. One must understand the biblical teaching on grace and salvation. Once they do, they see that these sorts of supposedly contradictory couplets aren’t “contradictions” at all. They are misguided, uninformed false speculations, exhibiting an ignorance of the teaching of the Bible. We all have to learn about any given subject. Theology is no different. It requires diligent study. I’ve been studying the Bible for 45 years, and I literally learn something new every time I study it more and write about it. Atheists are often exceedingly ignorant: many – as they themselves note — having been former fundamentalist or nominal Christians, and insufficiently instructed in the faith.

  1. Why did Jesus say that in him we would find peace (John 16:33), but also that he did not come to bring peace (Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:51)?

John 16:33 refers to personal / soul level peace and fulfillment (“in me you may have peace”). He makes the meaning absolutely clear in the similar passage, Matthew 11:28-29: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” The other passages, in contrast, have to do with those in one’s family not liking the fact that one is a follower of Jesus; thereby bringing about division, which Jesus expressed with Hebraic hyperbolic exaggeration as “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). In Luke 12:51, Jesus uses the literal description, “division.” It’s a social dynamic, as opposed to individual and personal. Another way of expressing the same dynamic was to say (with exaggeration of degree): “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Matt. 10:22).

  1. How can Jesus come into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) if the truth had always been evident (Rom. 1:18-20)?

The second thing is true, but the same passage notes how men deliberately reject what they know to be true. So Jesus had to come to offer more evidence for the truth and to bear witness to the character of God. That goes beyond what Romans 1 was addressing: which was only “his eternal power and deity” as evident “in the things that have been made” (1:20). Jesus revealed much more than that. Some truth about God has always been evident in His creation; Jesus brought a much fuller revelation of spiritual truth.

  1. How can Luke state that all was written about Jesus (Acts.1:1), while John asserts that the world could not contain all that could be written about him (John 21:25)?

Acts 1:1 is a general and non-literal statement. Luke was saying that his Gospel dealt with “all that Jesus began to do and teach” in a broad sense. We do this all the time in how we use language today. We might say, for example, “I’ve been all over the world.” No doubt there are several dozen countries where we haven’t been. This is understood by the hearers, who know that it is a broad, generalized statement. Or a woman says, “I’ve been unhappy all of my life.” Are we to understand that literally for every second she was unhappy? No. It’s understood that it means, “unhappiness is a recurrent problem and dominant theme in my life that I can’t seem to shake off or resolve.” When Luke explained his reason for writing his Gospel, he wrote that he had “followed all things closely” (Luke 1:3). Are we to conclude that this included absolutely everything about Jesus? It couldn’t possibly, because the Gospels record, for example, that Jesus went off to be alone many times. They wouldn’t have known what he did then. Note Luke’s undeniable use of “all” four times in a non-literal sense, in two verses: “And fear came on all their neighbors. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea; and all who heard them laid them up in their hearts, . . .” (Luke 1:65-66). Many more such examples could easily be found. John 21:25 exaggerates to make the point that “there is a lot more material out there about Jesus than what I have recorded.” There is no conflict here, once the different use of language is understood, just as we do all the time in life in interpreting people using literal or non-literal language. Usually, context helps us understand which is being employed. It’s the same in the Bible.

  1. Is repentance necessary (Acts 3:19; Luke 3:3) or not necessary (Rom. 11:29)?

Of course it’s necessary. Romans 11:29 has nothing to do with repentance. It simply states: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” This alleged “contradiction seems to have antinomianism in its thinking: the notion that once you are saved, you can do anything and it’s fine and dandy: no need for continuous sanctification and good works (or an extreme “faith alone / eternal security” view). This isn’t true, and is a gross caricature of biblical salvation. The Bible (and Paul) teach sanctification and the necessity of good works all through the Christian life. Paul in Scripture refers to repentance ten times, sanctification twelve times, and holiness eight times. All of this requires repeated repentance, because we fail and fall and have to be restored to a right relationship with God through repentance. Confession of sins (after one becomes a Christian) is also referred to in James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9. That is part and parcel with repentance as well.

  1. If the Holy Spirit forbade Paul from preaching in Asia (Acts 16:6), why did – or how could — he preach in Asia anyway (Acts 19:8-10)?

Acts 16:6 never indicates that this was a prohibition for all time. It was only for that particular time, as indicated by Acts 16:9 (“And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing beseeching him and saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us’”). This is a case of one passage not being specific enough to establish beyond all doubt or argument, a contradiction with another passage. If 16:6 had read, “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia forever” then a clear contradiction would be present, but alas . . . foiled again!

  1. Did God condemn the world (Rom. 5:18) or not (John 3:17)?

Jesus did not talk in John 3:17. It was John or whoever wrote the Gospel bearing his name. Nor did the narrator make this blanket statement. Rather, he said something more specific: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” It was specifically about why God the Father sent Jesus. Paul sort of says this in Romans 5:18, but the leading thought is that the fall of man and our rebellion was our fault, not God’s, just as a convicted murderer’s wicked act is his fault, not that of the judge who sentences him. In light of all this, no contradiction can be drawn from the above passages.

  1. Are all who call on the Lord saved (Rom. 10:13; Acts 2:21), or only those predestined to be saved (Acts 2:47; 13:48; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13)?

Predestination is very deep theological waters: among the two or three most misunderstood and mysterious aspects of theology. The unbeliever will never grasp it, according to 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” It is true that most Christians (including my own affiliation: Catholicism) believe that those who are saved were indeed predestined to be saved: but that’s because we believe that God knows all things and is outside of time. He knows, therefore, who will exercise their free will, soaked in his grace, and receive his mercy, grace, and salvation. In other words, none of this is without their free will cooperation. This cooperation with God’s grace (and with his predestination) is seen in many biblical passages (Rom. 15:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:10, 57-58; Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:10). Once all of these things are understood, it is seen that there are no contradictions. God predestines us, but he does so knowing that we would cooperate in our free will (that he gave us) with his grace and do our part of the equation. Many Christians misunderstand this, so (again) I don’t expect many unbelievers to grasp it. It’s too deep and complex, and spiritually discerned. But I have done my best to summarize it and to show that the attempted alleged contradiction is not one at all.

  1. Can non-believers obtain mercy (Rom. 11:32), or only believers (John 3:36; Rom. 14:23), or only baptized believers (Mark 16:16)?

Romans 11:32 teaches that God’s mercy is available to all. He wants all to be saved, but they have a free will, so many reject his free offer of mercy and salvation, and his moral precepts that go along with being saved. John 3:36 doesn’t say this at all. It states: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” The Bible doesn’t teach universal salvation to all, regardless of how they act. We all have free will to accept or reject God’s free gift of mercy, grace, and salvation. Some people reject that, but it isn’t due to a lack of God’s mercy. They refuse to repent and to follow God’s guidance. They would rather rebel against Him. The famous “gospel” passage John 3:16 laid out God’s free gift: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Romans 14:23 is about conscience (the whole chapter is about that) and proper foods to eat and has nothing to do with mercy. It’s a non sequitur in this discussion. Mark 16:16 reiterates the teaching of John 3. One who refuses to believe in Jesus and Christianity — who deliberately rejects it, knowing full well what it is — cannot be saved. This doesn’t deny God’s mercy, which is always there for everyone. But they must reform their sinful ways and repent. God being merciful doesn’t mean that He saves everyone whatsoever, regardless of what they do. We have to repent and cooperate with his grace. We want what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace” without cost or responsibility. And this alleged “contradiction” exhibits that stunted mentality. None of this proves that there are contradictory teachings in Scripture regarding God’s mercy. That teaching is crystal-clear (Psalm 103:2-4, 8; 116:5; Luke 6:36; Acts 10:43; Eph. 1:7; 2:4; Col. 1:14; 2:13; 3:13). I see no inexorable contradiction established here at all. What I see, in the way the alleged “contradiction” is laid out, is a profound ignorance of biblical soteriology (the theology of salvation). That calls for humility and a willingness to learn, not issuing challenges concerning supposed inconsistencies in things the person knows little about in the first place (which is annoyingly presumptuous).

  1. Paul indirectly admits (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that he knew of no miracles performed by Jesus. His Jesus is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.

This atheist refuted himself (a not uncommon occurrence), because he wrote in the same article that “Paul mentions” Jesus’ Resurrection “14 times.” Is that not a miracle? Indeed, it is Jesus’ greatest miracle: the conquering of death, and showing that there is an afterlife. The Gospels teach that Jesus raised himself (i.e., it was his own miracle), just as he had raised Lazarus (John 2:18-22; 10:17-18). Note that Jesus thought his Resurrection was the “sign” that the Jews demanded (2:18). He reiterates this elsewhere in comparing his resurrection to the “sign of Jonah” (Mt 16:1-4; Lk 11:29-30): that is, his emerging from the whale (metaphor for his tomb) after three days. The citing of 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 proves nothing that is claimed for it. Paul’s simply saying that the crucifixion was loathsome to the Jews, and made it harder for them to accept Christianity. In the same book he mentions the Resurrection of Jesus nine times: in 6:14 and eight more times in chapter 15. Moreover, when Paul recalls the story of his conversion to Christ, he mentions miraculous occurrences caused by “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 22:8): namely, “a great light from heaven” (22:6, 11), “brighter than the sun” (26:13), and “a voice” [of Jesus] from heaven (22:7; 26:14), which the others around him couldn’t hear (22:9). That was all miraculous and supernatural. It was a “heavenly vision” (26:19).

  1. It is better that young widows should remarry (1 Tim. 5:11-14) or not (1 Cor. 7:8)?

Paul in the overall context of 1 Corinthians 7:8 also recommends remarriage, since 7:9 states: “if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” Thus, both passages are consistent, not contradictory. The supposed “contradiction” comes from 1 Corinthians 7:8: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” To say that singleness is a preferable state to being married is not to forbid marriage or say that it is a bad thing. In the larger section, Paul teaches that singleness is better in order to avoid “worldly troubles” (7:28), to “be free from anxieties” (7:32), and to secure “undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35). Paul is also very pro-marriage: “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (7:2). Bottom line: Paul in this chapter teaches that everyone should live as God has called them to live (7:7. 17. 24). That could be either single or married. No contradictions are present, once Paul’s teaching is fully understood. 

  1. Are backsliders condemned (2 Pet. 2:20) or saved, regardless (John 10:27-29)?

Yes, it’s bad news “if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them” (2 Pet. 2:20; the entire chapter should be read, for context and completeness). John 10:27-29 doesn’t teach what described above. Rather, it asserts that the elect and predestined; the ones who will make it to heaven (whom Jesus knows about in his omniscience) will never be lost. It’s simply saying a=a (“those who are saved in the end are saved” or “the elect are saved” or “the predestined are saved”).

  1. John teaches that whoever hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15) and that if anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar (1 John 4:20), so why did Jesus teach that no one could be his disciple unless he hated his brother (Luke 14:26)?

1 John 3:15 expresses the principle (stressed in the Sermon on the Mount) that murder and every other sin have to start in our heart first”; in our thoughts and intentions. Secular law recognizes this based on degrees of guilt, based in turn on how premeditated and “voluntary” it was. 1 John 4:20 is about rank hypocrisy. One can’t love God and hate other people, because loving God includes obedience to his command to love all people, even our enemies. Luke 14:26, on the other hand, is an instance of exaggeration or hyperbole: the typically Hebraic way of expressing contrast. Literally it means “if you love your brother more than me [God] you can’t follow me” (since that would be idolatry). In fact, Jesus did express what we contend he was stating non-literally in Luke 14:26, in a literal fashion elsewhere (this is following the important hermeneutical principle of “interpret less clear or obvious passages by more clear related passages”): “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:37). The same scenario of “figurative ‘hate’ defined literally as ‘degrees of love’” occurs again in Genesis 29:30-33. This understood, the supposed “contradiction” vanishes into thin air.

  1. Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of “Enoch” from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God, right?

The fallacy here is to think that because the Bible cites something, it, too (the complete work containing the citation), must be the “Word of God.” This simply isn’t true, since the Bible cites several non-canonical works or aspects of various traditions without implying that they are canonical. Paul, for example, in speaking to the philosophical Athenians (Acts 17:22-28), cited  the Greek poet Aratus: (c. 315-240 B.C.) and philosopher-poet Epimenides (6th c. B.C.): both referring to Zeus. Paul used two Greek pagan poet-philosophers, talking about a false god (Zeus) and “Christianized” their thoughts: applying them to the true God. He also cited the Greek dramatist  Menander (c. 342-291 B.C.) at 1 Corinthians 15:33: “bad company ruins good morals”.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: clubraf (4-18-08) [Deviant Art / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License]

Summary: Portion of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

2023-11-28T20:52:00-04:00

Last updated on: November 28, 2023 at 8:52 pm   By
0 Comments

Chapter 9 (pp. 65-85) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:

Introduction (on the book page)

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream “Traditionalists,” and Supposed “Neo-Catholics” [revised 8-6-13]

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are Not [9-28-21]

If you’re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries” [8-6-13]

My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Clarifications [10-5-17]

Clarifying My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary” [4-3-20]

This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal’s classic, Pensées (“thoughts”). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece as “raw pearls” and “more like ‘sayings’ than a book . . . ‘Sayings’ reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That’s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T. III, 42, 4).”

I am not intending to compare myself or my own “thoughts” or their cogency or import in any way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or our Lord Jesus! I am merely utilizing the unconventional structure of the Pensées, which  harmonizes well, I believe, with the approach that I have taken with regard to the present subject. I have sought to analyze (minus proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological “bottom lines” and (in a word), the spirit of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.

*****

  1. Ecumenism can be traced to many kernels in Catholic tradition, most notably with the acceptance by St. Augustine and the Church, of Donatist baptism. The Donatists were formal schismatics, yet the Church accepted the validity of their baptism (just as with Protestants today).
  1. Radical Catholic reactionaries argue that ecumenism undermines, and is contrary to, evangelism and apologetics. It does not at all — the two goals being distinct and complementary endeavors, not contradictory ones. I rejoice in the truths that we share with our Protestant and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ; at the same time, we try our best to convince them that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the faith.
  1. Reactionaries claim that St. Thomas Aquinas would have rejected modern-day ecumenism. It can readily be granted that he didn’t understand it in the 21st century sense, any more than he accepted — let alone understood — the Immaculate Conception. It took the non-Thomist Blessed Duns Scotus to fully develop that. But ecumenism can be developed from the seed of St. Thomas’s teachings about the culpability and/or good faith of non-Catholics and non-Christians; just as it can be developed from St. Augustine’s approach to the Donatists, and the controversy over re-baptism — or for that matter, from our Lord’s dealings with Samaritan women and Roman centurions. We wouldn’t expect a figure from seven centuries earlier to fully grasp what has developed in the interim. The key is the nature of development of doctrine. Many developments would seem foreign to those from centuries earlier. But St. Thomas did teach on this general subject:

With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. (Summa Theologica, II II q. 10 a. 4 ad 3 — in some editions ad 4)

  1. Many reactionaries labor under the illusion that Vatican II ecumenism and indifferentism are identical. That can be easily refuted from the council documents themselves (so easily that there is no need to do so here).
  1. The ecumenical councils of Lyons and Florence also included reconciliation with the Orthodox, which might be regarded as precursors to Vatican II ecumenism. One can always find pre-conciliar popes and aspects of former councils espousing what is allegedly so hideous in Vatican II.
  1. Reactionaries are always decrying what they call a “false ecumenism” — often equating it with indifferentism or relativism. My question to them, then, is: what is considered true ecumenism? If there is no such thing, then why qualify the word? That would be like saying “avoid a false lust” or “don’t engage in false embezzlement.” The use of false, therefore, implies the existence of a true (authentic) ecumenism, as in the teaching of Vatican II.
  1. The so-called “innovations” of Vatican II concerning religious liberty are merely a return to the status quo of the early Church, over against the Church of the High Middle Ages. The council, in decreeing this, lends its authority to the current “move” of the Holy Spirit towards more tolerance and ecumenism, while not compromising or sacrificing doctrine in the process. Therefore, the Vatican II emphasis on religious liberty is not a corruption or reversal of previous tradition, since this was the primitive (apostolic) tradition, and since application of it may vary, according to times and places (since it is not a dogmatic question).
  1. Likewise, the Church has recently opposed capital punishment, which is not intrinsically morally impermissible. What is thought to constitute legal and societal justice, with regard to criminals (and formerly, also heresy) has obviously changed, from the times of the Crusades and Inquisition. In any event, this (like the religious liberty issue) also involves no dogma of the faith, or proclamations of a complete “reversal” of doctrine and precedent.
  1. The reactionary has to demonstrate that ecumenism and religious liberty are total corruptions of Catholic tradition. If they cannot do that, then they would then be part and parcel of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
  1. I don’t think reactionaries “get it” with regard to ecumenism. They don’t seem to make the necessary (elementary) distinctions, and jumble things and ideas together that don’t belong together. There are liberal distortions and reactionary distortions of ecumenism. The liberals get more and more heterodox and New Age, and the reactionaries become more and more conspiratorial and exclusivistic; almost Pharisaical at times, in their strong tendencies towards absurd, short-sighted hyper-legalism.
  1. I question whether many reactionaries even understand the true nature of legitimate Catholic ecumenism. They must first understand that in order to have a substantive opposing position (which is itself highly imprudent, as a Catholic must give assent to the Church’s teaching). We often observe a constant vapid equation of ecumenism with indifferentism. As the latter is clearly rejected by the Church, the criticism collapses as irrelevant; a non sequitur. Yet it is constantly made. This suggests that the real problem is found in the prior attitude of the reactionary and his fallacies and Protestant-like false dichotomies, not in the teaching itself, since the very thing harped on is already dealt with in the documents themselves. Reactionaries see in documents of Vatican II and papal and Church actions what they want to see. What they miss is the responsibility to give assent to what the pope (and the council) is teaching.
  1. As for the never-ending trashing of the reactionary critics of the Assisi I and II ecumenical gatherings, they need to show from actual proclamations by the pope and other Catholics, that the faith and Vatican II-type ecumenism was compromised. Instead, we observe a lot of hysterical alarmism that presupposes certain fears and suspicions from the outset and then interprets the proceedings accordingly. That is singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive. Thus we see reactionaries – like one person from a prominent reactionary website/newsletter, who went to the second ecumenical gathering at Assisi as a reporter to heap scorn upon the proceedings and present it according to his warped, preconceived (false) notions of its intent and goal and underlying impulses.
  1. Reactionaries tell us that many of the faithful are confused by things like Assisi I and II and the Pope kissing the Koran, etc. But lots of things in Catholicism are confusing, as it is on a very high level, spiritually and intellectually. The Trinity is very confusing. The hearers of Jesus’ discourse from John 6 were very confused, too, including virtually all the disciples. So what? Luther was very confused about the biblical symbiotic relationship between faith and works. Ignorance is changed by education, not sugar coating possibly difficult-to-understand teachings and actions. The complexity and depth of the Catholic Church is its unique glory. The deepest spiritual and theological truths aren’t all that simple.
  1. I was asked if I would “kiss a book that denied the divinity of Christ” (referring to Pope St. John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran). I replied: Would you vote for a candidate who allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest? Would you pray with a Protestant (or a Jew) at a school commencement or at a family picnic? Once I prayed with a Muslim Imam at a George Bush rally. Does that make this man a Christian (or terribly compromised), because he prayed with a majority Christian crowd? Of course not. Does that make me (along with hundreds of other Christians there) a Muslim and mean that I deny the divinity of Jesus? Again, of course not. Or did I deny the divinity of Jesus without knowing it? Reflective adults immediately realize that such joint endeavors are based on the common ground we have, while at the same time acknowledging self-evident differences.
  1. I was also asked if I would “kiss the writings of Arius.” I replied that it is not a direct analogy, because one is a heresy and corruption of Christianity, whereas the other (though still ultimately incorrect in many ways) is a separate religion altogether. Would a reactionary kiss the Hebrew Bible? Would he kiss the famous scroll of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls? No? Why? Yes? Then they are (by their own false reasoning) accepting an incomplete, Christ-less religion and denying key tenets of Christianity.
  1. Apparently, reactionaries accept Vatican II, with the exception of the following clauses about Islam, Judaism, and other religions, from Nostra Aetate (more of the pick-and-choose cafeteria Catholicism of the modernists, and private judgment of Protestants?):

The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God . . . They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God . . . The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding . . . (3)

The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. (2)

The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values. (3)

Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage, this sacred Council wishes to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation. This can be obtained, especially, by way of biblical and theological enquiry and through friendly discussions. (4)

  1. When a layman disagrees with the Holy Father on matters of prudence, I go with the pope, all things considered. When a reactionary disagrees with the decree of an ecumenical council, ratified by a pope, on matters of ecumenism, I — with all due respect — go with the council. The Muslims often do a better job than Protestants and liberal, nominal Catholics when it comes to sexual morality, the wrongness of contraception and abortion, pornography, divorce, and homosexuality, and in their (bizarre, strange) behavior of continuing to want to have large families with two parents of a different gender. But let’s simply war against them (as an entire class of people – not referring to the opposition of extreme lunatic terrorists), rather than work together to fight the evils of Communism, humanism, terrorism, radical feminism, unisexism, widespread abortion and euthanasia, and sexual debauchery and degeneracy. Let’s never work together for a better world, based on the many values that we hold in common. That would never do; we don’t want that.
  1. I don’t think reactionaries fully understand paradox, nuance, and the complex balances which Catholic teaching require. Ecumenism does not negate apologetics. Partial truth in another religion does not contradict fullness of truth in Catholicism. It isn’t a zero-sum game, as if no other belief-system has any truth and all are worthless, simply because we possess the fullness of it. Reactionaries again show their affinity to the thought-processes of Martin Luther, who also had this irritating tendency of creating false tendencies: man has a sinful tendency, therefore he is totally depraved, and even good acts are sinful; God is sovereign, therefore man has no free will. Etc., etc.
  1. Authentic Catholic ecumenism is the effort to find as much common ground and common cause with all our religious brethren as we can, and as much “oneness” — without compromise of doctrine or what we believe to be apostolic tradition; and also to understand and frankly acknowledge where we disagree, and to establish respect and fellowship (with fellow Christians). I think charity and common-sense ethics demand that, and I believed the same as an evangelical. I don’t think it is ever good to stop talking to and dialoguing with people of good will. It in no way necessarily implies an “indifferentism” or religious relativism (as many Catholic liberals and their liberal Protestant cronies have distorted the endeavor to mean). With the Jews and Muslims, ecumenism is more or less diplomacy and good will, and co-belligerency against the evils of our time wherever possible (e.g., the Muslims and Orthodox Jews agree with us on contraception and abortion and other traditional family issues), as well as the condemnation of hatred, mutual suspicion, etc.
  1. Why can’t we join together with other Christians (even those of other religions) in all the areas that we hold in common (especially morality, in this day and age)? I think we’re all too used to (and rightly sick of) the ersatz, fake ecumenism of the liberals, where nominal religionists agree to find togetherness in their unbelief and skepticism. That requires neither guts, ingenuity, nor effort. That’s not the Catholic or Vatican II approach at all, nor is it the least bit impressive or appealing. What’s so profound about agreeing on things that are already agreed upon?
  1. One reactionary disdainfully remarked that “the typical neo-Catholic will snuggle up with persons who have no interest in joining their religion.” I replied: You mean the way that Jesus snuggled up to the Roman centurion?: “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith . . . Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” (Matthew 8:10, 13). Jesus uttered not a word about the gospel or believing even in the Jewish Torah, let alone the full-bodied message and dogma of Christianity.
  1. Reactionaries (like many Calvinists and Protestant fundamentalists) take a dim view of the notion that people will be judged, in part, according to how much they know and don’t know about Christianity or Catholicism. But this is eminently biblical:

But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Luke 12:48)

. . . we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1).

And you, Capernaum . . . If the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you. (Matthew 11:23-24)

. . . although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him . . . (Romans 1:21)

If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead. (Luke 16:31)

We believe that we have the fullness of salvation. That doesn’t mean that all who are not formal members of the Church will go to hell. The Church has never taught that. No one is saved outside the Church, in one sense, but they can possibly be in another sense.  Both truths have been held in paradox. One cannot take one to its extreme and deny the other. This is no modern innovation of liberalism or Vatican II. It goes back to Jesus, St. Peter, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

  1. The Second Vatican Council — contrary to uninformed reactionary claims – repeatedly stressed that there was no salvation outside the Church and that the Catholic Church possessed the fullness of salvation:

Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life. (Nostra Aetate [Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions], section 2; p. 739 in Flannery edition)

This motif is all through Unitatis Redintegratio. If one can miss this crucial element — which some reactionaries incredibly claim is “missing entirely” from this Decree on Ecumenism –, then one can miss the sun in a clear sky in summer at high noon. I shall cite just a few statements:

Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. (1)

. . . division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world . . .  (1)

The sacred Council . . . has already declared its teaching on the Church . . .  (1)

In this one and only Church of God . . . the Catholic Church . . .  (3)

. . . written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity . . . All of these .  . . belong by right to the one Church of Christ. (3)

For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained . . . the one Body of Christ into which all those should be incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. (3)

. . . little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered . . . into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. (4)

Their ecumenical activity cannot be other than fully and sincerely Catholic, that is, loyal to the truth we have received from the Apostles and the Fathers, and in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed . . . the  reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ . . . (24)

Likewise, Lumen Gentium states, among other things: “This is the sole Church of Christ . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church.” (8) / “. . . that all may be peaceably united, as Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.” (15)

  1. In 1937, Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, wrote:

Against the violent effort of the powers of darkness which would snatch from the hearts of men the very idea of God, we hope very much that Christians shall come and join all those who, and they are the greater part of humanity, believe that God exists and who adore him.

  1. Indifferentism is a mindset and procedure in which ostensible differences (usually no longer held in fact) are papered over in a quintessentially liberal ersatz relativistic nominalism, masquerading as feel-good “unity.” Orthodox Catholic ecumenism, on the other hand, is holding strongly and never yielding one’s “orthodox” belief, and not denying real, heartfelt differences in the slightest, yet simultaneously seeking to achieve whatever unity, acknowledgment of common ground, fellowship, and social and political cooperation that is possible with one’s Christian brethren. This is required of every Christian, in light of the very strong scriptural injunctions towards unity, especially John 17.
  1. Reactionaries claim that by attending a Protestant church service, we are, in effect, demonstrating that we agree with all their teachings and beliefs. This may be the impression of some, but it is by no means clear-cut. To use a personal example, I attended my niece’s confirmation at a Lutheran service. To not do so would strike me as uncharitable and smacking of spiritual arrogance (or at least perhaps leaving that impression). I didn’t partake of the communion, and did nothing contrary to my beliefs while there — and a great deal fully consistent with my Catholic beliefs (I used to attend this church as a Protestant, and in fact it played a large role in my evangelical conversion of 1977). This is not a compromise, and Catholics are not absolutely forbidden to attend Protestant services; rather, we are advised to use our judgment, discretion, and prudence. I went to my mother’s Methodist church on Mother’s Day one year. This meant a great deal to her. She knew full well I disagreed with some things, but that was quite beside the point. All three of her children were worshiping God with her in her own church, for the first time in many years. I don’t think God is concerned about that sort of thing, to put it mildly. But the devil would love to get Christians stirred up in opposition to it, because “divide and conquer” is one of his successful strategies.
  2. Protestants and Orthodox are not — strictly speaking — “outside the Catholic Church.” The Decree on Ecumenism, from Vatican II (I, 3) states:

One cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church . . .

[A]ll who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. “Moreover, some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

This doesn’t mean that we cease from trying to vigorously persuade non-Catholics that the fullness of apostolic Christianity resides in the Catholic Church. There is always a certain tension or paradox between ecumenism and apologetics, but as Catholics we are commanded to engage in both endeavors. It isn’t optional.

  1. Reactionaries act as if mere presence at a Protestant service or cooperation with Protestants on any number of joint endeavors, is a total acceptance of their doctrines. If that were the case, I could do little at all in this world, since I can always find something to disagree with — ethically or doctrinally. I would scarcely be able to leave my home. I could never set foot in a house of fornicators, or talk to pro-abortionists, or give a gift at Christmas to a drug addict or glutton or greed-filled man, or fellowship with Orthodox, since they sanction things I regard as mortal sin (divorce and contraception), etc. But my Bible teaches me that Jesus Himself would do all these things. The apostles went to the synagogues until they were kicked out. The burden of proof is on the reactionary to show that contact with anyone who disagrees to the slightest degree theologically is utterly impermissible. I maintain that it is neither biblical nor in line with the demands of charity. We have the example of Jesus eating in sinners’ houses. He ate the Last Supper with Judas (knowing all things). I think that is sufficient. The real ecclesiological and theological issues are made even more difficult to resolve by such a foolish and uncharitable stance of rigid inflexibility: assuming something is a principle when it is not, and is in fact merely Pharisee-like legalism and obscurantism.
  1. There is a delicate balance between ecumenism and apologetics. The former without the latter degenerates into liberalism, indifferentism and relativism. The latter without the former is hard-hearted, overly rationalistic, dry-as-dust ivory tower Christianity. As always, Catholicism takes a “both/and” approach. We are not beholden to intellectual and cultural fads and fashions.
  1. Since some reactionaries imply that Vatican II suddenly changed everything for Catholics with regard to ecumenism, it is helpful to explore what the Catholic Church was teaching along these lines in the three or four generations before the council. Catholic thought has developed in this area (just as it has in many — if not all — areas), especially in the last fifty years or so, during which time the development has been noticeable and rapid. But fairly explicit precedent exists for such ecumenism at least as far back as Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903), who tried to encourage an attitude of respect and friendship with regard to the Churches of the East. In his encyclical, Praeclara Gratulationis [1894], he used expressions that had previously rarely been seen in papal documents:

We cast an affectionate look upon the east . . . the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in the ancient faith and glorious past . . . the distance separating us is not so great . . .

Leo XIII never calls the Orthodox, or speaks of them, as schismatics. He tries to describe the schism in a way that — though faithful to his own Catholic convictions —  is not insulting or condescending towards the Eastern Orthodox Christians. For Leo XIII the Orthodox are separated Christian, or “dissident Christians.”  He stresses that unity becomes more glorious and attractive if it encompasses a great diversity of liturgical and ecclesiological rites, customs, and forms. This ecumenical approach taken by Leo XIII has been highly influential on the policy of the papacy ever since. In all the documents on the Eastern Churches since his time, we find a friendly tone, a call to unity and reconciliation and mutual respect, and a formal recognition of the Eastern Orthodox traditions.

  1. With Pope Pius XI (r. 1922-1939), the ecumenical outlook with regard to Eastern Orthodox Christians becomes even more explicit. For the first time, the official documents of the Catholic Church confess that the barriers to reconciliation and reunion are not all caused by the Orientals . . . In Rerum Orientalium (1928), he states:

The remedy for the great ills of separation cannot be applied unless the impediment of mutual ignorance, contempt, and prejudice be first removed. . . .

Ven. Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) more openly foresaw the blessings that unity could bring to the universal Church, East and West.

  1. Equally remarkable is the increasing openness in the approach to Protestants from recent popes. This development has been slower than that towards the Orthodox, but it does undeniably exist and can be demonstrated. Pope Leo XIII addressed many letters to Protestant Christians in which he avoided the insulting vocabulary of the past. He never referred to them as heretics, and referred to them as separated Christians. Leo XIII’s desire for unity included Protestants. He was a key player in several movements of prayer for unity, and he sought formulas of unity that would be agreeable to both Catholics and Protestants.
  1. In official Church documents, the development of the “modern” ecumenical outlook with regard to Protestants is notable in the thought of Ven. Pope Pius XII. In his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (1939), a new motif is emphasized:

We cannot pass over in silence the profound impression of heartfelt gratitude made on us by the good wishes of those who, though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to us, in love for the person of Christ or in belief in God.

  1. The constant reference to Protestants as separated brethren in Venerable Pope Pius XII is striking, since it assumes what older Church documents were not so willing to grant: the good will on the part of non-Catholic Christians. In the writings of Ven. Pope Pius XII it is presumed that many — perhaps most – Protestant Christians are outside the Church without guilt. In other words, they are not heretics (especially in the subjective sense), but rather, separated brethren. They have faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ, and many spiritual attributes that give them a profound affinity with Catholics and the Catholic Church.
  1. The notion that Protestant Christians have access to real faith (the faith that justifies), to grace, and the same God, has been implicit in the principles of Catholic theology at all times (which is why ecumenism is a consistent development and not a novel innovation, or corruption). In the writings of great converts such as Newman, Manning, Chesterton, and Knox — Catholics who remembered their own previous states of mind — we find this ecumenical outlook stated clearly.
  2. On the Ecumenical Movement was published by the Holy Office in 1949. It allowed Catholics, with the approval of their bishop, to participate in theological dialogue with Protestant Christians. This was an official Catholic recognition of the ecumenical movement. The document permitted ecumenical gatherings to be opened and closed with common prayer.
  1. All of the Catholic ecumenical development surveyed above, occurred in the 80 years between the time of the pontificate of Leo XIII (from 1878) up through the reign of Ven. Pope Pius XII (who died in 1958). The well-known, extensive, and profound ecumenical efforts of Pope St. John XXIII, who called the Second Vatican Council, are not even included. Clearly, ecumenism has been the noteworthy and remarkable Catholic development of our times, even surpassing mariological development, whose explicit roots go back considerably further than modern Catholic ecumenism does. Ecumenism, though new in many ways, is nevertheless a legitimate development of Catholic theology and thought; one with an explicit history that precedes Vatican II by many centuries, and often seen in Holy Scripture as well.
  1. The Second Vatican Council was not the triumph of liberalism and indifferentism, liturgical mediocrity, and situation ethics; nor was it a radical change of direction. Quite the contrary: it was perfectly orthodox and consistent with preceding developments and trends. The Donatists, too, were institutionally outside of the Catholic Church. But the Church – all the way back in St. Augustine’s time (d. 430) — determined that their baptism was valid, and that individual Donatists didn’t need to be baptized upon conversion to Catholicism. This is precisely the same fundamental and sacramental principle by which we declare that Protestants are baptized into the Body of Christ, and are therefore a part of the One True Church in some imperfect fashion.
  1. Reactionaries almost totally misunderstand the ecumenical language of Vatican II. The council is not agreeing with Buddhism or Islam or any other religion per se; rather, it is merely recognizing the sincere and worthy goals to be found in almost all world religions. This is diplomatic, conciliatory language. It is obviously an attempt to find common ground with other religions — not an exercise in indifferentism or relativism. Reactionaries needn’t create a contradiction where, in fact, two ideas are complementary. Those who are predisposed to be critical of Vatican II often find in it what they wish to find, but in so doing, they make their bias evident to all.
  1. Nostra aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions), from Vatican II had a particular purpose. The key phrase in the document is: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.” In other words, what is true is good (and that is what is discussed), and can be gladly acknowledged. The errors are, of course, harmful. It is not the function of this particular document to document those. But it is not an indifferentist document (see #164 above).
  1. The reactionary could, I suppose, argue (similar in spirit to a sectarian Protestant fundamentalist) that all religions besides Catholicism are thoroughly evil, through and through, but this is patently (and I think, obviously) false. St. Paul engaged in a tactic not unlike the document Nostra aetate, in his sermon on Mars Hill, in Athens (Acts 17). He cited pagan poets and philosophers, and the “tomb of the unknown god,” rhetorically built upon them, and proceeded to make the case for Christianity. So he engaged in both ecumenism and apologetics, consecutively. It is difficult to do them simultaneously, just as a prophet cannot easily bring forth a message of love and pastoral concern, and a scathing jeremiad, at the same time.
  1. Furthermore, St. Paul teaches the notion that much good can be found outside of the “law” (by extension, the Church) in Romans 2:12-16 (cf. 3:29). This is nothing new in Catholic teaching. Ecumenism finds its roots right in Holy Scripture. This incorporation of what was true and good in pre-Christian religion was also very much in evidence in the Virgin Mary’s appearance at Guadalupe — perhaps the greatest and most rapid mass conversion of all time. St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165) wrote:

Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus. (Apology, I, 46)

St. Augustine agrees:

From the beginning of the human race, whoever believed in Him and understood Him somewhat, and lived according to His precepts . . . whoever and wherever they may have been, doubtless were saved through him. (Epistle 102, 12)

  1. The reactionary anti-ecumenical argument (especially against the two ecumenical gatherings at Assisi) ironically reduces logically to a curious version of the tired anti-Catholic Protestant objection that Catholicism is deliberately compromised with paganism. Like the Protestant charge, it is based on a thorough (and rather elementary) misunderstanding, and is a house of cards with no foundation.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II kissed the Koran, in an ecumenical, diplomatic gesture. Reactionaries have maintained that this was imprudent and scandalous, even if the Holy Father didn’t intend to convey agreement with Islam. They argue that such an action was bound to be misunderstood; therefore, shouldn’t have been done in the first place. Yet, many things in the Catholic Church are gigantically misunderstood. If we stopped doing and believing things for that reason, we could do little except be “mere Christians” and “skeletal Christians,” as I like to call a certain sort of minimalistic, least-common-denominator sort of Christianity. The Marian doctrines are severely misunderstood. Should we, then, not proclaim them, and refuse to participate in Marian devotion? How many Protestants believe in or understand the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin? Should we then throw these beliefs out? Should we totally rule out the possibility of the pope defining Mary-Mediatrix for the same reason (and I speak as an “inopportunist” myself, though I accept the doctrine). A full-blown Mariology (even already-defined Marian doctrines) “suggests” a bunch of false ideas to a bunch of folks, too. Moreover, we know that our Lord Jesus was often misunderstood. One could make a similar argument of, “why did Jesus do that?” — say, forgiving the adulteress, or turning the tables in the Temple – “It was terrible PR . . . ,” etc.
  1. I think it is utterly obvious that the pope’s kissing of the Koran didn’t suggest carte blanche approval; it merely meant acceptance of those things which are true in the Koran, per Vatican II directives on ecumenism, and Pope St. John Paul II’s many comments in this vein. In other words, his actions have to be interpreted in light of his overall teaching, and that of the Church, as crystallized especially in Vatican II. Many reactionaries – quick to draw the most cynical, skeptical, critical conclusion, refuse to do that.
  1. The pope also sometimes kisses the ground in America and other countries when he enters them. Does that mean he sanctions legal abortion or (from 1993-2001) the presidency of Bill Clinton, with all that it represented? Clearly not. These are diplomatic gestures, born of charity and good will, not exhaustive doctrinal agreement. Kissing the ground or perhaps a dignitary (in some cultures) does not mean total approval of that person or his country. If it did, then there could be scarcely little diplomacy at all. If every handshake, hug, or kiss meant what reactionaries have to imply for their argument to succeed, we would never end any wars (by diplomatic means) or have any treaties. Did the pope shake hands with Castro when he visited Cuba? I assume that he did. I doubt that I could have done so myself, but then I am not a world leader, whose job requires such delicate gestures at times, for the sake of peace, unity, and understanding.
  1. Every conciliatory and “unitive” act must be understood within the prior assumption of theological and philosophical differences. These are presupposed throughout, whereas in indifferentism they are cast to the wind. True, the outsider can’t always know this from observation, but truth is sometimes complex.
  1. What if the pope kissing the Koran (theoretically) stopped a war? Would that be a valuable end? Would the reactionary critic of the pope rather be a Crusader going in to do battle with Muslims, or a St. Francis of Assisi, who tried to talk to them, did miracles, and profoundly impressed Muslims in so doing? An easy choice . . .
  1. Certain gestures (in this case, kissing a book) have a wider “application” than just the liturgy, so that the analogy to the liturgy is not “exclusive.” Genuflecting (apart from the sign of the cross) is similar to curtseying or bowing before a king. There is overlap. Therefore, it is just as reasonable or proper to make an analogy to kissing the ground (with all that that means and doesn’t mean), as it is for reactionaries to make an analogy to kissing the gospels in the Mass. I would maintain that the more fitting or obvious analogy is to another country, since we are dealing with another religion, and indeed another supposed “revelation.” Meeting with Muslims is nothing like a Mass at all.
  1. At the Assisi ecumenical gatherings, there weren’t common prayers undertaken by those of different religions. There were simultaneous prayers offered. This is a crucial distinction, and one that disintegrates much of the almost hysterical reactionary critique against these undertakings.
  1. Prohibition of meeting with non-Catholics is a prudential, disciplinary matter. It may have been wise during the 16th century, but hopefully the Church has become a little more confident, so that we don’t have to fear being overcome by every non-Catholic argument. If we are to reach non-Catholics, we have to talk to them, truly respect them insofar as we can, and love them. We can hardly do so by an absolute refusal to engage in any common activities. Nothing in true ecumenism, therefore, is unbiblical (e.g., the Samaritan woman, the Roman centurion, the initial outreach to the Gentiles) or un-Catholic (the Donatists; the acknowledgment of Protestant baptism and Orthodox sacraments). It isn’t an eternal dogma that Catholics can’t talk to or fraternize with non-Catholics. How could we evangelize or teach about the fullness of the Church if this were an absolute? We couldn’t even say grace at a family reunion, or listen to an invocation at a commencement ceremony (as some anti-ecumenical sorts of Orthodox Christians have indeed argued).
  1. If Pope St. John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran was done only in the company of one, or a few, then obviously it was not intended for “public consumption.” As such, it seems to me that much of the reactionary argument about it causing scandal and stumbling to the “faithful” collapses, as it was something done in private in the first place.

*****

Photo credit: annegaellecahuzac (1-12-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]
*

Summary: Chapter 9 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).

2023-11-28T18:53:53-04:00

Last updated on: November 28, 2023 at 6:53 pm   By
0 Comments

Chapter 2 (pp. 19-30) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in December 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:

Introduction (on the book page)

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream “Traditionalists,” and Supposed “Neo-Catholics” [revised 8-6-13]

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are Not [9-28-21]

If you’re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries” [8-6-13]

My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Clarifications [10-5-17]

Clarifying My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary” [4-3-20]

This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal’s classic, Pensées (“thoughts”). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece as “raw pearls” and “more like ‘sayings’ than a book . . . ‘Sayings’ reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That’s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T. III, 42, 4).”

I am not intending to compare myself or my own “thoughts” or their cogency or import in any way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or our Lord Jesus! I am merely utilizing the unconventional structure of the Pensées, which  harmonizes well, I believe, with the approach that I have taken with regard to the present subject. I have sought to analyze (minus proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological “bottom lines” and (in a word), the spirit of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.

*****

  1. The orthodox, faithful, obedient Catholic outlook on the Church (even in the truly grave crisis it now endures — arguably the greatest ever) is far more sunny than that of radical Catholic reactionaries. Their incessant pessimism and cynicism often runs contrary to a robust faith and trust in God, and a working knowledge of past crises.
  1. The Catholic Church has not caved into modernism and immorality, as so many other Christian groups have done. We have resisted, with God’s supernatural help. The most recent battle for the Church is already over. Have reactionaries missed it? The liberal / modernist / dissident / “progressives” have lost, and they know it full well. If only reactionaries could realize this fact. We are like Europe after World War II. It would still take a while to rebuild, but it was inevitable, and the nightmare was over.
  1. In 1990, I was amazed at the preservation — in the Catholic Church alone — of the traditional morality that I had increasingly come to espouse as an evangelical Protestant missionary and pro-life activist. I viewed it as the very last bastion against modernism and the secular humanist onslaught, and the glorious fullness of apostolic Christianity. I was, therefore, compelled to join such a wonderful Church, the Church, and was delighted to discover that it actually existed (I had had the usual invisible church conception of evangelicalism, but I was far less a-historical than most). And now reactionaries come around and tell me that all this was an illusion. Nonsense! The beliefs have not changed! We call this development. Obviously, we are operating from two completely polarized views of reality, when it comes to the Church. Someone must be wrong.
  1. Clearly, the Church has (institutionally) resisted the tides of secularization. There have been many individual casualties, sadly, as always with these huge, momentous spiritual/cultural battles. Priests, bishops, nuns and monks, heretical lay activists, DRE’s (even popes) may indeed have to give account to God for their actions or inactions. But whatever the case may be, the dogmas and structure of the Church have survived intact.
  1. I believe we shall see a huge revival (perhaps the largest ever) in this century, which I will witness when I am an old man, some 20-30 years from now. We’ve seen every abomination and form of wickedness imaginable in the 20th century. This is the age of martyrs, even more so than the early centuries. That blood is not shed in vain (redemptive suffering). History shows us that — generally — the centuries following terrible ones are times of revival, reform, and rejuvenation in the Church. Revival is cyclical, and recurring. It has always been this way. The tide is turning. Signs are all around us. Converts abound, vocations are increasing, and younger priests are overwhelmingly orthodox. Catholic outreach and apologetics on the Internet is thriving. Catholic radio and TV and book publishing are finally rising from the ashes. The Catholic home schooling movement is flourishing. Catechesis is slowly improving. Things are far different even from twenty years ago. I didn’t know a thing about Catholic apologetics in the late 80s, apart from Chesterton, who was dead for over 50 years (and I was a Protestant lay apologist). Now one can hardly avoid it. This is almost a Golden Age of Catholic apologetics. Only a blind person could fail to see and rejoice over all these positive developments.
  1. One can see the wave of the future if they look closely enough. It will be a slow resuscitation (we’re talking in terms of centuries and ages), but it’s inevitable if the Lord doesn’t return soon, if for no other reason than the fact of God’s amazing mercy, and His Providence, whereby we know that “all things work together for good, for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Therefore, we ought to always be optimistic and joyful, in love with God and His Church, the Holy Father, the Virgin Mary and the saints.
  1. Do reactionaries have their heads in the sand? Like the Pharisees of old (the legalists and hyper-reactionaries of that time), they fail to discern the “signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3). They will tell us how many liberals and heterodox Catholics are still around, and point to the scorched earth left in their wake. Well, so what? There were many liberals around during the Catholic Reformation and the Council of Trent, too. It so happened that most of them had left the Church, rather than remain in it (though, of course, many liberals are leaving the Church today). They were called Protestants. There were liberals during the Councils of Nicaea (Arians), and Ephesus (Nestorians), and Chalcedon (Monophysites), and Vatican I (Old Catholics).
  1. Times of great revival and reform can occur even while heterodox liberals and heretics remain a problem. God is not bound by our timetables, desperation and alarmism, limited perceptions, and conceptions of things. He simply ignores the liberals and goes about His business. They are merely pawns in His Grand Scheme, just as the Egyptians or Assyrians or Babylonians or Persians or Greeks or Romans or Nazis or Soviet Communists were (all immensely powerful in their heyday). They are not in the middle of the Divine Plan, as we orthodox Catholics are, because they do not seek to do His will. They have rebelled, and are therefore, “out of the picture.” That is why they are already irrelevant, and destined for obsolescence in the dustbin of history, like all other heresies and schismatic sects (where, for example, are the Marcionites or Albigensians these days?).
  1. The only Christians — besides Catholics — with any staying-power historically, and semblance of apostolic orthodoxy, are the Orthodox — precisely because they maintained apostolic succession and have valid sacraments. Apart from that, Christian or quasi-christian sects eventually go liberal (mainline Protestants) or disappear. It takes many decades or centuries, but it happens. They have life in them only insofar as they approximate, or draw from, the Catholic Church. Liberalism, too, will disappear as any sort of major influence, because it has no life in itself. It can’t reproduce itself because it is the counsel of despair and disbelief. The very next generation will largely reject it. These things are absolutely certain, and are seen in decreasing membership rolls of “mainline” denominations. The demise (the real “auto-demolition”) may take a while yet, but it will occur, because God is not mocked.
  1. Complaints, undue criticism, condemnation, disobedience, dissent, bickering, moaning and groaning, silly and self-important pontifications, whining, waxing eloquently cynical: that’s what we so often see in the reactionary movement. It’s extremely unseemly, unedifying, and unappealing.
  1. It is denied that the reactionary position is characterized by an attitude of pessimism and lack of faith. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). One reads the sort of comments reactionaries habitually make, and one is more than justified in arriving at certain conclusions, if words mean anything at all. If individual proponents of these viewpoints happen to have a joyful heart, then they would do well to include some positive remarks in public also. How about an article once in a while like “What’s Good in the Church?”? A gloomy “quasi-defectibility” outlook is contrary to a truly Catholic faith in God’s guidance of His Church. Many reactionary writings do not convey this sort of hope and sunny optimism at all.
  1. The important thing among these “true believers” is for them to know what they are against. That is sufficient for inclusion into the club. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” The same dynamic also applies to anti-Catholics in all their various nefarious manifestations. Some fundamentalists are even willing to absurdly embrace the Albigensian Gnostics, in the attempt to claim a pedigree apart from the Catholic lineage.
  2. The alarmist reactionary rhetoric gets worse and worse, as with all conspiratorial schemes and theories trumped-up in order to explain things that people find themselves unable to comprehend or understand (therefore, they disobey and lose confidence in their ecclesiastical superiors). Like Job’s comforters, reactionaries fail to see that God is at work: though mysterious and inexplicable His ways may continue to be. A little reading of Church history (the bleak periods) might do wonders. Catholics take the long view of history; they are not bound up by the fads and peculiarities and zeitgeist of any particular time period. This is one of the glories of the Church; one of the things that so attracts converts to it.
  1. A certain harmful and deleterious “spirit of radical Catholic reactionaryism” runs contrary to the spirit of obedience to the pope and Church authority, and to a bright, optimistic, hopeful faith (which martyrs possess in the very worst of circumstances). The doom-and-gloom mentality, exclusivistic orientation, and tendency to resort to conspiratorial explanations for things one is unable to comprehend also typifies certain strains of political conservatism, and “fundamentalist” branches of Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
  1. How can it be that converts abound despite the reactionary Chicken Little scenarios about the current-day Church? Were all converts like myself dupes who should have stayed in the “conservative” denominations? I’m here in the Church because it taught against contraception, like all Christians did before 1930. The fact that many Catholics disbelieve the teaching was absolutely irrelevant with regard to my decision to convert. The doctrine was correct. The same applies to divorce and abortion. This is what attracted me to the Church, because moral laxity can be found anywhere (original sin). But true, traditional, unchanging Christian moral teaching is only found in its fullness in one place. That’s what I had been seeking for, for ten years as a serious Christian. I found it, and here I am, and quite glad to be here, and not at all constantly “troubled” like so many reactionaries seem to perpetually be. It must get very tiring. Converts have found the pearl of great price. Reactionaries seem to want to prove that the pearl is really a jagged, stinky lump of coal, or worse.
  1. Converts know that there are problems of liberalism in the Church. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Liberals (like the poor) will always be with us. But only one Church has true doctrine in toto, true moral teaching, the most sublime spirituality, saints and miracles and all the rest, and the unbroken history to verify those. That is what brings converts in, because we are well acquainted with the doctrinal chaos and ecclesiological anarchy in Protestantism.
  1. Faith and perseverance must enter in, in such troubled times in the Church. We need to understand that Church history repeatedly shows this pattern; that even the early Church had tremendous scandal and hypocrisy, and — above all — that the Church is indefectible. That’s why the orthodox Catholic remains forever an optimist. We readily acknowledge that modernism is rampant; we deny that it can ever overthrow the Church. One must have faith. Reactionaries ought to read the book of Job. Tough times afflict the Church as well as the individual. It is to be expected. Why does that surprise reactionaries? Liberalism, heterodoxy, and unbelief are never surprising, but a Church that remains orthodox despite all is perpetually a delightful and heartening “surprise.” The glory of the Church (like that of the saints) is not that it has no problems, but that it always sees a way through the problems. It always conquers them. Heresy has no life of its own, so it always fails eventually, while the Church marches on (as in Chesterton’s marvelous reflections on “orthodoxy”). It does so because it is God’s own Church, and God cannot fail.
  1. The Church has always had problems. The Catholic must take a long view of history. Modernism will not be defeated in a day. But it will be defeated, and we see more and more signs of that every day.
  1. The liberal is ignorant of Church history, and re-makes the Church in his own image. Protestants often take precious little interest in Church history at all. Reactionaries forget (or never knew) that the Church has been through very dark periods on many occasions.
  1. Radical Catholic Reactionaryism is profoundly pessimistic, which is fitting for Buddhists, Hindus, or nihilists, but not Christians. So God has given up on His Church? Even our Lord Jesus had His Judas, and St. Paul had his Corinthian church. God saw fit to include in the ancestry of Jesus a harlot (Rahab) and a murderer and adulterer (David). There was no “golden era,” if by that one means a period without serious ecclesiastical problems. I think reactionaries continue to believe in original sin, and the world, the flesh, and the devil. The Church is to be reborn in the caves and backwaters of Pharisaical reactionary gatherings? I think not. The verdict of Church history lies with the institutional Church, and most assuredly against the quasi-schismatic tendency that characterizes reactionary thought and opinions.
  1. The liberals are dying out. We ought to just forget about them, just like Merlin did to Queen Mab in the Arthurian legend. They will be irrelevant in another fifty years at the most, just like the buffoons of the so-called “Enlightenment” and French Revolution and the Communists and Nazis are today. If God mocks the fools and despots of the world, how much more so in the Church? Modernism will go the way of all heresies. Reactionaries give it far too much credit and attention. It peaked in the mid-70s and has been dying a slow death ever since.
  1. It always takes a bit of faith and foresight to recognize the beginnings of a revival when it is occurring. That’s nothing new. So reactionaries can’t see it, because they are concentrating on all the bad things and problems that are in the Church. Problems of one sort or another have always been present; obviously they didn’t prevent past revivals from occurring.
  1. The modernist, heterodox, dissident strategy was and is absolutely predictable, and it indeed occurred. But the liberal theological influence is rapidly fading, and they (like aged and irrelevant dinosaur Marxists on every college campus) know it, even if many of the shaken faithful do not yet know this, due to the harmful fallout from many Catholic institutions, having endured the devastating effects of the senseless “experimentation” and mindless “innovations”. But the dissenters didn’t expect to reckon with such a powerful adversary as John Paul II! That was God’s counter-attack, and we praise Him for it!
  1. What we have seen is that the Catholic Church has heroically and magnificently upheld traditional doctrine and morals, while virtually every other Christian group has caved in, to one degree or another. This is a major reason why I am a Catholic today. The stand on contraception was the first thing that started me on the road to conversion, because I desired the moral theology of the early Church and the apostles, and looked around to see who had preserved it in its totality.
  1. The Orthodox may not have a “modernist crisis” as we do (in a certain liturgical or “surface” sense), but the reason for that is (arguably) because they didn’t have the cultural and theological foresight (nor even the ability, without councils and central authority) to confront modernism head on and defeat it. Consequently, they are compromising on contraception, whereas we have stayed true to the universal Christian prohibition of contraception prior to 1930. Protestants (even evangelicals) are caving in and compromising doctrinally and morally all over the place (the Anglicans provide a clear, quick example of that). We have, of course, many individuals who are compromising and selectively believing, but Church doctrine has remained inviolate, and that was the promise of Jesus to Peter, not that every believing Catholic would be fully orthodox and observant (which has never happened and never will). When one faces a great evil and a powerful opponent (as in any military conflict), one takes some casualties, and there is much hardship, but in the long run, it is a better thing to do than to hide from reality or pretend that no problems exist, and engage in a pipe-dream that cultural isolationism will suffice to overcome them.
  1. The Church is dealing with these problems now. Things take time. The pessimist always concentrates on present miseries, while the optimist, idealist, or person exercising faith look at the good things that will come in the future, as the present decadent cycle comes to a close and the new revival starts to gradually pick up momentum. We need only look back at Church history to see what is coming next (excepting Christ’s return, of course). If the Second Coming isn’t imminent, then it is almost certain that major revival will come in this century.
  1. The indefectibility of the Catholic Church and its divine protection from the Holy Spirit is our grounds (in faith) that things will get better, and are, in fact, not as bad as they seem in the first place (at the deepest, spiritual level). Joy rests on grounds other than circumstances. Joy comes from inner peace of the soul, by the grace of God, and a Christian can possess it even in a concentration camp, or with incurable cancer. The saints even truly embraced suffering with joy, as a privilege and honor and a way to help save souls. I am referring to the optimism of the eye of faith: the assurance that God knows what He is doing, and that history has a purpose: that all things are in His Providence, though He obviously doesn’t will all things in His perfect will. He allows bad things, and then uses them for His own purposes. The modernist crisis is no different than anything else; God uses it for His benevolent ends, and is not mocked. Doom-and-gloom and Chicken Little pessimism are contrary to faith and the true Catholic spirit.
  1. I suspect that a lot of the reactionary analysis of the crisis in the Church comes down to temperament. Some people are of a state of mind and emotional make-up that they are naturally pessimists. They may struggle with depression or find it difficult to be of good cheer, with regard to day-to-day life. They might be going through any number of things that are legitimately troubling. Sensitive souls will be harmed and troubled more by evil and “things gone wrong” than less sensitive types. We mustn’t pretend that temperaments and personality types have no effect on our worldviews. They certainly do. Nevertheless, I think there are real, objectively measured grounds for optimism with regard to the Church situation, other than simply a feel-good delusion based on mere temperamental factors and circumstances.
  1. If we were to talk to someone in the dark cultural days of the collapse of the Roman Empire, we could tell them (with our perfect hindsight), that God would build up a new and better civilization, which indeed happened (Christian Western Civilization), and that our citizenship is ultimately not of this world in the first place (as St. Augustine argued in his classic, City of God). Jesus said the same thing: “My kingdom is not of this world.” It’s not that these things pose no problem or inner conflict at all (I’m very troubled about the descent of America into a moral sewer and sound-asleep intellectual stupor), but that the Christian has a frame of reference that transcends them and offers ultimate hope. We are to work within our cultures to do what we can to transform and “baptize” them. That was the aim of Vatican II, but reactionaries ignore that by looking at historical events after it, rather than the content in it.
  1. My basis for thinking that the 21st century will bring revival, is seeing right now many good, real, and significant signs, and the fact that the 20th century was the absolute worst in history (at least in terms of murder and other sorts of human suffering due to despotism). Among many of those who died were Christian martyrs: more than at any other time, even in the early Church, and that is important to consider because “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Their suffering will not have been in vain. When Christians suffer, it is for redeeming purposes. So I believe that all this suffering will bear fruit in a revival that we already see the beginnings of. God’s mercy is such that He will pour out more graces after such a brutal century. Many Marian apparitions (approved ones) proclaim this same message as well.
  1. Modernism / liberalism is already undone. The fatal blows have been struck. The implementation will take a little time (basically, people have to die off, like the wicked generation in the Exodus under Moses); that’s all.
  1. We’re in a bleak period, having taken the brunt of liberal nonsense and heterodoxy (teetering and dazed, but still afloat and very much alive). There have been many such periods. There were popes who went whoring around; there were horrible massacres in the Crusades, which we are still trying to live down. There was astonishing ignorance. The worst periods were always followed by glorious periods. The 10th century was followed by St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine. The Borgia Renaissance popes and numerous clerical abuses of that time (partially leading to the Protestant Revolt) were followed by St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa of Avila, and the glorious Catholic Reformation. I submit that reactionaries have a pronounced lack of understanding as to precedents for this sort of thing and how God brought His Church out of them, every time, without exception. Invariably, the best centuries follow the worst. So if that model holds, what is likely to happen in the 21st century? Have reactionaries learned nothing from previous Catholic history (or are they just unaware of it, prior to their own lifetime, as so many are)? It’s human nature to think that our own period is the worst ever (not to deny that, indeed, very terrible and troubling things have happened in our age).
  1. One reactionary with whom I was dialoguing believed that the Catholic Church “may not recover for a thousand years, or ten thousand” (from the crisis of modernism). This person (and anyone else who believes the same) lacks faith in God and His promises, and can’t see any of the good things that are right in front of him. Somehow reactionaries believe that this crisis will take 10,000 years rather than a hundred or two to resolve. Even the liberals aren’t that confident about their supposed “victory.” Quite the contrary! There is no question that this mentality is full of the bleakness of utter despair for the Church, and lacking much of a sense that God is in control. Why be a Catholic at all, with such a low view of the Church? I don’t get it. I would never have converted if I believed this. There would be no reason to. So the reactionary view turns out to be “counter-conversion” (just as the liberals offer no reason to convert to the Church — they don’t urge it at all). If there were no hope for any earthly church then I would have stayed in my little self-chosen denomination, believing that one is just as good as another.
  1. The belief that God can guide even a human institution that is at the same time “His” in a special way takes more faith than believing that He can produce an inerrant, inspired Scripture through sinful men, but we believe it because we believe in the Word made Flesh. In other words, God can transform even the human into something glorious. It all flows from the incarnation.
  1. We mustn’t condemn all “change” per se, without examining the merits and demerits of each change. It strikes me as simply a knee-jerk reactionary impulse: “change is bad.” What about “changes” like the Catechism and the wave of converts and the flourishing of apologetics, or the significant rise in vocations in various quarters, or EWTN, or the strong trend of orthodoxy of young seminarians? Do reactionaries like those changes, or must they always see only the negative (much of which is arguably not even “negative” in the first place)?
  1. Reactionary lamentations about the state of the Church are scandalous and highly imprudent. Even if some few of their analyses are correct, it is not right to air dirty laundry in public, just as it is highly inappropriate for a married couple to loudly argue about their personal problems in a public restaurant.
  1. The fabulous joy, hope, and overwhelming feeling of “coming home” which I — along with many converts — have experienced upon entering the Catholic Church, could not last a day if I were to adopt the pessimistic, “o woe is me” views that reactionaries manage to hold.

*
*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*
Photo credit: GioeleFazzeri (3-6-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]
*
Summary: Chapter 2 (pp. 19-30) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in December 2023 for the free online version).
2023-12-11T12:44:20-04:00

Last updated on: December 11, 2023 at 12:44 pm   By
0 Comments

[see the book info-page / buy Kindle or Nook versions]
*

Chapter three (pp. 139-158) of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains over 1,900 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

PETRINE PRIMACY / PETER AS THE FIRST POPE

Genesis 41:39-41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (cf. 43:19; 44:4)

1 Kings 18:3 And Ahab called Obadi’ah, who was over the household. . . .

2 Kings 15:5 . . . And Jotham the king’s son was over the household, governing the people of the land.

2 Kings 18:18 And when they called for the king, there came out to them Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the secretary, and Jo’ah the son of Asaph, the recorder. (cf. 18:37; 19:2; Is 36:3, 22; 37:2)

Job 12:14 If he tears down, none can rebuild; if he shuts a man in, none can open.

Isaiah 22:15, 20-24 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, . . . In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.”

Matthew 16:15-17 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Matthew 16:18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?” (cf. Titus 1:7)

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, including the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (see also 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 18:18).

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or  “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13).

Only Peter, among the apostles, received a new name: Cephas, or Rock (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14). He was the first to confess Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16), and is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Matthew 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;

Mark 3:14-17 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons: Simon whom he surnamed Peter; James the son of Zeb’edee . . .

Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you. (an angel speaking)

Luke 6:13-14 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew,

Acts 1:13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, . . .

St. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles. Judas Iscariot is always mentioned last. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else.  His name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John: Mt 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mk 5:37; 14:37). Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and six as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present half of the time we find John mentioned in the Bible.

2 Samuel 7:7 . . . the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, . . .

Psalm 78:70-72 He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds; from tending the ewes that had young he brought him to be the shepherd of Jacob his people, of Israel his inheritance. With upright heart he tended them, and guided them with skilful hand.

Isaiah 44:28 who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose”

Jeremiah 3:15 And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. (cf. 23:4)

Ezekiel 37:24 My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd.

Luke 22:31-32 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

 John 21:15-17 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

The Good Shepherd, Jesus (John 10:11-16; cf. Ps 23:1; 80:1; Is 40:11; Jer 31:10; Mt 26:31; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 7:17) gives us other shepherds as well (Jn 21:15-17, above; Eph 4:11). St. Peter is here regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself, singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

Luke 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him [John and James] were heavy with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. (cf. Mk 1:36)

Acts 5:15 so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Acts 12:5 So Peter was kept in prison; but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.

Acts 12:11 And Peter came to himself, and said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.”

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

St. Peter is regarded by his fellow disciples and apostles, the Jewish leaders, and the common people alike as the leader and spokesman of Christianity, as indicated by his constantly being singled out or highlighted, or distinguished from others, in narratives (cf. Mt 17:24; Acts 2:37-41; 4:1-13; 10:1-6). He is often the spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.), and usually the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as Jesus’ walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff.; Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

He was the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36), and the first to preach the necessity of baptism for entrance into Christianity and regeneration (Acts 2:38, 41).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, exercising what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose. His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2. Paul had gone to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

John 20:3-6 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,

Luke 24:33-34 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour: Lk 24:33)

 1 Corinthians 15:5-6 . . . he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

St. Peter was the first apostle to enter the empty tomb and the first one to see the risen Jesus, and other disciples and apostles are aware of this.

1 AND 2 PETER AS “PAPAL ENCYCLICAL” TYPES OF DOCUMENTS

Protestants believe that St. Peter wrote inspired Scripture; Catholics believe that he also could write infallible documents, too, as the first pope. Some Catholics have argued that 1 and 2 Peter are somewhat like a primitive papal encyclicals (just as 1 Clement also was):

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia,

1 Peter 5:1-4 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.

First Peter is written to a wide variety of Christians, rather than to a specific church or individual, like St. Paul’s epistles. He exhorts Church elders and urges others to be shepherds, just as Jesus urged him to do (Jn 21:15-17), because he is a “super-elder” and the shepherd of the whole flock, in an analogous sense to Jesus (5:4). The epistle is very “general” and broad and written much like the style of papal encyclicals today: wise, sage, almost proverbial: encouraging Christian to endure suffering (1:6-7; 3:13-14; 4:1, 12-17) and to be holy (1:14-23). He addresses the topic of husbands and wives (3:1-7).

2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:16-21 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

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

The second epistle is the same. He is essentially writing to all Christians and authoritatively interprets prophecy, explains that it is ultimately not private in nature (a “magisterial” sort of statement), and refers to the difficult nature of some of St. Paul’s writing (3:15-16). St. Paul writes directly to local flocks of Christians. But St. Peter is writing to the whole Church. Thus he appears to be doing what popes do in their encyclicals, whereas Paul is functioning more as local bishops do.

“PAPAL ACTS” OF ST. PETER

Acts 2:33, 36-39 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. . . . Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

St. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36): an example of “binding and loosing”.

Acts 5:1-10 But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

This is the first anathema (against Ananias and Sapphira): emphatically affirmed by God.

Acts 8:17-23 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

St. Peter He was the first to recognize and refute heresy (simony), and again issues an authoritative warning or anathema, so that Simon would repent.

Acts 3:2-8 And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at that gate of the temple which is called Beautiful to ask alms of those who entered the temple. Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms. And Peter directed his gaze at him, with John, and said, “Look at us.” And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. And leaping up he stood and walked and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God.

Acts 9:36-41 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, “Please come to us without delay.” So Peter rose and went with them. And when he had come, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing tunics and other garments which Dorcas made while she was with them. But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

St. Peter performed the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:2-8). Even his shadow worked miracles (Acts 5:15). And he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

Acts 10:34-35 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

St. Peter was the first apostle to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-20), and to command them to be baptized.

Acts 15:7-15 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethren, listen to me.  Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, . . .”

St. Peter makes the authoritative doctrinal pronouncement at the Council of Jerusalem and seems to stop the debate cold in its tracks, as indicated by the assembly falling silent. St. Paul and Barnabas talk about signs and wonders, but no indication is given of any doctrinal proclamation from them. When James speaks he refers back to Peter (even though Paul had spoken in the interim), and then basically confirmed what Peter had also said. All of this is harmonious with the notion of Peter functioning as a pope: the head of the Church, while working together with the apostles and bishops and elders.

EXAMPLES OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS (MOSTLY PROPHETS)

Deuteronomy 5:5 while I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; . . . (Moses. cf. 1 Chron 15:15; 2 Chron 35:6)

1 Samuel 15:10 The word of the LORD came to Samuel: (cf. 1 Chron 11:3)

2 Samuel 7:4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, (cf. 1 Chron 17:3)

2 Samuel 24:11 And when David arose in the morning, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer . . .

2 Samuel 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue. (King David. cf. 1 Chron 22:8)

1 Kings 6:11 Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon,

1 Kings 13:20-21 And as they sat at the table, the word of the LORD came to the prophet who had brought him back; and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD, and have not kept the commandment which the LORD your God commanded you,’ . . .”

1 Kings 15:29 according to the word of the LORD which he spoke by his servant Ahi’jah the Shi’lonite;

1 Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Eli’jah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth.” (see also: 16:1, 7, 12 [Jehu]; 16:34 [Joshua]; 17:2, 8, 16 [Elijah]; 18:1 [Elijah] )

2 Kings 1:17 So he died according to the word of the LORD which Eli’jah had spoken. . . .

2 Kings 7:1 But Eli’sha said, “Hear the word of the LORD: thus says the LORD, . . .”

2 Kings 9:36 When they came back and told him, he said, “This is the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Eli’jah the Tishbite, . . . (cf. 10:17)

2 Kings 14:25 . . . according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amit’tai, the prophet, . . .

2 Kings 20:4 And before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: (cf. 20:16,19; 23:16)

2 Kings 24:2 . . . according to the word of the LORD which he spoke by his servants the prophets.

2 Chronicles 11:2 But the word of the LORD came to Shemai’ah the man of God: (cf. 12:7)

2 Chronicles 24:19-20 Yet he sent prophets among them to bring them back to the LORD; these testified against them, but they would not give heed. Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechari’ah the son of Jehoi’ada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you.’”

2 Chronicles 30:12 The hand of God was also upon Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 36:21 . . . the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah . . . (cf. 36:22; Ezra 1:1; Jer 1:2, 4; 2:4; 7:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; 16:1; 18:5; 19:3; 21:11; 22:2, 29; 24:4; 28:12; 29:30; several more times in Jeremiah; Dan 9:2)

Nehemiah 9:30 Many years thou didst bear with them, and didst warn them by thy Spirit through thy prophets; . . .

Isaiah 38:4 Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: (cf. 39:5, 8; 66:5)

Jeremiah 25:3 For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josi’ah the son of Amon, king of Judah, to this day, the word of the LORD has come to me, and I have spoken persistently to you, but you have not listened.

Jeremiah 26:15 . . . the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.

Ezekiel 33:1 The word of the LORD came to me:

“Word of the LORD” appears 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel; usually in reference to the prophet Ezekiel.

Hosea 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Hose’a . . . (cf. 4:1)

Joel 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Joel, the son of Pethu’el:

Amos 7:16 Now therefore hear the word of the LORD. . . .

Jonah 1:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah . . . (cf. 3:1, 3)

Micah 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Micah . . .

Zephaniah 1:1 The word of the LORD which came to Zephani’ah . . .

Haggai 1:13 Then Haggai, the messenger of the LORD, spoke to the people with the LORD’s message, “I am with you, says the LORD.” (cf. 1:1, 3; 2:1, 10, 20)

Zechariah 1:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Zechari’ah . . . (cf. 1:7; 6:9; 7:1,4, 8; 8:1, 18)

Zechariah 7:12 They made their hearts like adamant lest they should hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets.

Malachi 1:1 The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Mal’achi.

Malachi 2:6-8 True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

This passage is referring to Levites, who were teachers in Israel.

The prophets received their inspiration by the Holy Spirit (Num 11:29; 2 Chron 24:20; Neh 9:30; Ezek 3:24; 11:5; Zech 7:12; Acts 28:25; 2 Pet 1:21). The Holy Spirit (as a result of the New Covenant) is now given to all Christians (Jn 15:26; 1 Cor 3:16), so it is perfectly possible and plausible that an even greater measure of the Holy Spirit would be given to leaders of the Church who have the responsibility to teach, since James wrote: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (Jas 3:1). The disciples were reassured by Jesus: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 8:32), so surely it makes sense that shepherds of the Christian flock would be given an extra measure of protection in order to better fulfill their duties.

Jesus called John the Baptist “more than a prophet” (Lk 7:26) and stated, “among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Lk 7:28). Therefore, it is not in the least implausible that one man: the pope, could be infallible, which is a far lesser gift than the inspiration and direct revelation from God exhibited by the prophets.

Briefly put, then, the argument is: “If prophets spoke with inspiration, then popes can plausibly speak infallibly, since the latter is a far less extraordinary gift than the former.” Or, from a different angle: “if those with lesser gifts can do the great thing (inspired utterance), then those with greater gifts can certainly do the lesser thing (infallible utterance).”

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: (cf. 2:15)

Luke 1:70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,

Acts 28:25 The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:

2 Peter 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

See further New Testament references to prophets and prophesying: Acts 2:16-18; 11:27-28; 13:1; 15:32; 19:6; 21:9-10; Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 11:4-5; 12:10, 28-29; 14:1, 3-6, 22, 24, 29, 31-32, 37, 39; Eph 3:5; 4:11; 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14).

Any non-Catholic Christian who believes in the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and who accepts the received canon of Scripture (either 66 or 73 books), — which itself derives from authoritative conciliar and papal pronouncements of an infallible Catholic Church –, accepts the fact that St. Peter, the undisputed leader of the twelve disciples, and (we believe) the first pope, has written two inspired epistles (or encyclicals, if you will). “Inspiration” means “God-breathed”: a positive characteristic that includes being entirely free from error (as all God-inspired words of revelation are truth).

Infallibility is a limited, far less profound “negative” protection against error. Everyone who holds to the inspiration of Scripture already believes that St. Peter wrote inspired words from God in the Bible. Where, then, is the inherent difficulty in believing that he and his successors could be protected by the Holy Spirit to write infallible documents (see, e.g., John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 15:28)? The more difficult thing to believe: the thing that requires far more faith, since it is a greater gift, is already accepted, so what insuperable prima facie difficulty remains in the notion of infallible (as opposed to inspired) popes (and an infallible Church)?

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: I provide the biblical rationale for Catholic beliefs by presenting categorized Bible passages regarding the pope, papal headship, papal supremacy, & papal infallibility.

2023-12-11T12:42:36-04:00

Last updated on: December 11, 2023 at 12:42 pm   By
0 Comments

[see the book info-page for this volume / buy Kindle or Nook versions]
*

First part (pp. 59-99) of chapter two of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains over 1,900 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

VISIBLE, INSTITUTIONAL, UNIVERSAL CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST

Matthew 5:13-15 You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.

Matthew 16:18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

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.

Acts 8:3 But Saul was ravaging the church, . . .

Acts 9:3-6 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (this appears to refer to the Church as the “Body of Christ”)

Even the Apostle Paul was under the authority of the Church. Compare Galatians 1:18: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.” And Galatians 2:9: “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Paul was also sent out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

Acts 20:28 . . . the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (cf. 12:14-27)

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

1 Corinthians 11:22 . . . Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? . . .

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; (cf. Phil 3:6)

Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,

Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:10  that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 4:1-5 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,  with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Ephesians 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (cf. 5:25, 27, 29)

Ephesians 5:32 This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

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

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES (PROTO-PRIESTS) ARE CALLED AND CHOSEN (VOCATION) BY JESUS OR THE HOLY SPIRIT

Matthew 4:18-22 As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zeb’edee and John his brother, in the boat with Zeb’edee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Mark 1:20 And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb’edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

Mark 3:13-14 And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. And he appointed twelve, to be with him . . .

Mark 6:7 And he called to him the twelve, . . .

Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles;

Luke 9:1 And he called the twelve together . . .

John 13:18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’

John 15:16, 19 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. . . . If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Acts 1:2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Acts 10:41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Acts 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,

1 Corinthians 7:17, 20, 24 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. . . . Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. . . . So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.

1 Corinthians 9:16-17 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.

1 Corinthians 12:28-29 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, . . .

Galatians 1:1 Paul an apostle — not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead –

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,

Ephesians 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,

Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, . . .

Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,

1 Timothy 1:1, 12 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, . . . I thank him who has given me strength for this, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service,

1 Timothy 2:7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . .

2 Timothy 1:1, 11 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus, . . . For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES (PROTO-PRIESTS) ARE “SENT” BY JESUS OR THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND GIVEN AUTHORITY

Matthew 10:1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,”

Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

Mark 3:14-15 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons:

Mark 6:7 And he . . . began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.

Luke 9:1-2 And he . . . gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal.

Luke 10:1-3 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.”

Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.

Luke 11:49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,”

Luke 22:35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.”

John 4:38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.

John 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;”

Acts 13:2, 4 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” . . . So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

Acts 16:10 And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedo’nia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Acts 22:21 “And he said to me, ‘Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

Acts 26:17 . . . the Gentiles — to whom I send you

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

2 Corinthians 10:8 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame.

2 Corinthians 13:10 I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

THE CHURCH CALLS, COMMISSIONS, AND SENDS MEN OUT TO DO THE WORK OF MINISTRY

Acts 9:22-30 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesare’a, and sent him off to Tarsus.

Acts 11:22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:1-4 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni’cia and Sama’ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.

Acts 15:22, 25 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab’bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Acts 15:27, 30, 33 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. . . . So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. . . . And after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brethren to those who had sent them.

Acts 17:10, 14 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. . . . Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, . . .

Romans 10:15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”

1 Corinthians 4:17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

2 Corinthians 8:16-23 But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest he is going to you of his own accord. With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel; and not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work which we are carrying on, for the glory of the Lord and to show our good will. We intend that no one should blame us about this liberal gift which we are administering, for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men. And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters, but who is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in you. As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker in your service; and as for our brethren, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ.

Galatians 1:18; 2:9 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. . . . and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Ephesians 6:21-22 Now that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tych’icus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts.

Philippians 2:25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphrodi’tus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, (cf. 2:19, 23, 28)

Colossians 4:7-10 Tych’icus will tell you all about my affairs; he is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts, and with him Ones’imus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of yourselves. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here. Aristar’chus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions — if he comes to you, receive him),

1 Thessalonians 3:2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you,

Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13)

LAYING ON OF HANDS FOR ORDAINING AND CALLING MINISTERS OF GOD

Acts 6:1-6 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

Acts 9:17 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 13:1-4 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre’ne, Man’a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

1 Timothy 4:11-16 Command and teach these things. Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (cf. 1 Tim 5:22; Heb 6:2)

2 Timothy 1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

DISCIPLES (PROTO-PRIESTS) AS DIRECT REPRESENTATIVES OF JESUS

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

Luke 10:16 He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

GOD’S FELLOW WORKERS FOR THE KINGDOM

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

John 15:13-15 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Corinthians 9:22 . . . I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Ephesians 3:1-2 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles — assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

GOD’S SERVANTS

Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (cf. Lk 16:13)

Mark 9:35 And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, “If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” (cf. 10:43; Mt 10:24, 20:26, 23:11; Lk 16:13)

Luke 22:26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

John 12:26 If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him. (cf. Jn 13:16; 15:20)

1 Corinthians 3:5-8,10 What then is Apol’los? What is Paul? ervants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. . . . According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

1 Corinthians 4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ . . .

2 Corinthians 4:5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

2 Corinthians 6:4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way . . .

Galatians 1:10  Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

Philippians 1:1  Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, . . .

Colossians 1:7  as you learned it from Ep’aphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf

Colossians 4:7 Tych’icus will tell you all about my affairs; he is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. (cf. 1 Thess 3:2)

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . .

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, . . .

1 Peter 5:1-3,5 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. . . . Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. . . .

2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, . . .

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES (PROTO-PRIESTS) PRESIDE OVER THE EUCHARIST AND THE MASS

Isaiah 66:18, 21 For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, . . . And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

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

Acts 2:42, 46 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, (cf. Acts 20:7)

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

THE POWER OF PRIESTS TO BIND AND LOOSE (IMPOSE PENANCE AND GRANT ABSOLUTION, AFTER CONFESSION) / INDULGENCES

Matthew 3:6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (cf. Mt 16:19: to Peter alone)

Mark 1:5 . . . and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 24:47 . . . repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

John 20:22-23 . . . he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Acts 19:18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 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.

2 Corinthians 2:6-11 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.

The above two passages offer explicit biblical proof of the doctrine of indulgences. St. Paul binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7, 10. He forgives, and exhorts the Corinthians to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally. Both parties act as God’s representatives in the matter of penance, the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin’s temporal penalties. This latter type of remission is exactly what Catholics mean by an “indulgence”.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. 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.

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

1 John 1:8-9 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

PRIESTS AS DISPENSERS OF SACRAMENTS

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Acts 2:38, 41 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. . . . So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . . .

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

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

1 Corinthians 4:1-2 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. (Latin sacramentum means “mystery”)

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

SACRIFICIAL NATURE OF MINISTRY / PERSECUTION

Matthew 4:22 Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

Matthew 5:10-12 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 10:38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

Matthew 19:27-29 Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.”

Matthew 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, (cf. Lk 11:49)

Matthew 24:9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;

Mark 8:34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Mark 10:28-31 Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many that are first will be last, and the last first.”

Mark 13:13 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.

Luke 6:22, 26 Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! . . . Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

Luke 9:3 And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.”

Luke 9:23 And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

Luke 9:57-62 As they were going along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But he said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” (cf. Mt 8:19-20)

Luke 10:16 . . . he who rejects you rejects me, . . .

Luke 14:26-27 If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 21:12, 17 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. . . . you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.

John 12:25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

John 15:18-20 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

John 17:14 . . . the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

1 Corinthians 4:9-15 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things. I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:12, 18-19 . . . we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. . . . What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel. For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.

2 Corinthians 4:7-17 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we too believe, and so we speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,

2 Corinthians 6:4-5 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger;

2 Corinthians 11:23-28 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.

Philippians 3:7-8 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ.

2 Timothy 3:12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

1 John 3:13 Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you.

CELIBACY FOR THE SAKE OF UNDISTRACTED DEVOTION TO THE LORD

Jeremiah 16:1-2 The word of the LORD came to me: “You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.”

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

1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 17, 32-35, 38 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. . . . Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

GOD’S MINISTERS ENTITLED TO PAY

Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.

1 Corinthians 9:3-12, 14 This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? . . . Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*
Photo credit: user32212 (2-21-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: I provide the biblical rationale for Catholic beliefs by presenting categorized Bible passages having to do with the topic of the authority of the Catholic Church.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #1: "Apocrypha" 1: Propheticity
A blast from this blog's past
Braden Molhoek on Free Will
Living the Good Life!
Angel Studios, Wonder Project Announce ‘Young Washington’
Beyond Words: Experiencing God Through His Living Word
view all Family blogs