|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Documented Evidence Against Rome
Andrew responds:
DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 1
Nicholas confesses that he was "troubled and tense" when loved ones defended Catholicism. He suggests that the source for this anxiety was their lack of the necessary facts to make a rational defense. I would interject that the real reason for his nervousness was the mere situation of their opposing his anti-Catholic bigotry. He cannot stand to be opposed. Since many of his so-called facts are superficial and/or erroneous, perhaps his constant parroting of the anti-Catholic party line is to convince himself? Many of the most rabid anti-Catholics have found themselves in the Church of Rome when their own house of cards comes tumbling down. He asks why would anyone would ignore what he has to say when the case he makes "is so easy to prove"? He does not answer his question. Could it be that his so-called facts prove nothing? I think this is the scenario. It is as I suspected. Nicholas says there was a time he resisted "those laborers" sent to draw him from Catholicism. His writings reveal that he had a poor understanding of his religion, despite protestations that he was well-informed and convinced of his Catholic faith. The seed of their protestation found fertile soul in his ignorance of the Scriptures. Nicholas claims that as a child in Catholic school he was told a story in which Jesus formed birds from the earth and breathed life into them. Later, I suppose as an adult, he searched the Scriptures and discovered the story to be absent and therefore a myth. Catholicism has never claimed this tale from Gnostic apocrypha as genuine. Indeed, such writings are considered heretical and have long been repudiated by orthodox Christianity. The Church cannot be held accountable for the silliness and misjudgment of every teacher in her schools. Disappointed in poor teachers and having rejected any "devotion and trust" in his priests, this man who was supposedly "loyal all the way to the bone" quickly found himself disloyal when he opened the bible. Could it be that "those laborers" who had sought to discredit the faith had already seriously prejudiced him? It may be that he lacked the basic tools to interpret the Scriptures in the way the Church does? Could it also be the case that an internal rebellion blinded him to the Church's views and propelled him into his present defection? It is possible that priests gave him an insufficient response to his questioning; however, the Nicholas today seems utterly closed to any correction and logical reasoning. He tells us that the bible is "infallible in every aspect" so Nicholas clearly fits into the category of a fundamentalist Christian, albeit with his own peculiar spin on certain passages. He is critical of the "tradition of men" while not recognizing that there are traditions inspired by God's Spirit extending back to apostolic times. The anti-Catholic seeks to empty traditions of the divine so that they can be discounted as hindrances to salvation. However, such is now how the Church understands the matter. There are various types of tradition. We cannot discuss them all as if there is no difference. Nicholas makes the statement that some traditions are so ancient that Scripture exposes them as false. However, he makes no delineation between what was required in the Old Testament and what was added and abrogated in the New. Also, sometimes there are similar practices that are not the same as those traditional activities perpetuated by the Church. Fundamentalists use isolated texts, with little historical background, to condemn whatever they find offensive to their sensibilities. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 2
Nicholas contends that there is a real difference between the worship of God as it is requested in the Word of God and how it is offered according to Catholic dogma. Rather than immediately following up this fantastic claim, he jumps to the moral issue of homosexuality. Quoting Leviticus 20:13, he seems to argue that it should earn the death penalty. Such a contention leaves one speechless. He quotes the New Testament in defense of his abhorrence to homosexuality. This is well and good, in that the texts are critical of unlawful acts and not to the homosexual orientation. However, one must remember that Nicholas is saying that Leviticus 30:13 is still operative: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." While the New Testament states that such acts close one off to eternal life, the Old Testament Scripture would insist on the cessation of their physical life through capital punishment. This is the clearest example to date of Nicholas' religion of hate. As with so many anti-Catholic fundamentalists, their moral theology and temperament towards mercy is more reflective of the old law than of Christ's new dispensation of love. Nicholas claims that Catholicism has been wrestling with the issue of homosexuality for centuries, and yet the Church has been critical of such actions throughout her long history. Is he angry because the Catholic Church does not want to kill homosexuals? He contends that Bishop Levada in San Francisco capitulated on the issue of homosexuality by allowing Catholic Charities to accept more than five million dollars worth of city contracts. Would Nicholas prefer that Catholic Charities shut down? Does he appreciate how many people this would harm? The battle over benefits for gay partners has been a real crisis. While not wanting to condone certain behavior, the Church has consistently argued for adequate healthcare and insurance for all. It is this latter principle for which the Church has opted in making judgment calls in such crisis situations. Nicholas misreads Catholic teaching when he says that the Church does not consider homosexuality (acts) to be sinful. Sin is still sin. Fortunately, Catholics belong to a Church where there is forgiveness of sin and a genuine love for the sinner. While many might question some of the late Cardinal Bernadin's practical decisions, his consideration of homosexuals as "children of God" is totally in line with the Gospel of Christ. Nicholas makes no distinction between the homosexual orientation and activity. This reduces Nicholas' view of charity and mercy to something quite frightful. He tells us that we should not "show hatred toward EVERY homosexual we meet." Does this mean that we can show hatred to some? Why would it be selective? He has already argued that the Old Testament punishment of death should be enacted. He claims they are not children of God. What if the homosexual person is celibate? Do homosexuals forfeit their rights as citizens? He states that it is a "lethal mistake" to defend their rights. Nicholas condemns the Catholic Church on this issue. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 3
Nicholas begins his attack on Catholic leniency toward alcohol by noting the abuses of Saint Patrick's Day. The fact that Church authorities have also cautioned people not to drink to excess is never mentioned. Indeed, the Church teaches that drunkenness is a sin. If he were not so colloquial, he would know that back in Ireland it is less a circus but rather a day of prayerful commemoration. Many people in the United States reduce the saint's day to a secular celebration. This is highly unfortunate, but not the Church's fault. If Nicholas commemorates the Last Supper I suppose he must use grape juice. He seems to be an advocate of total abstinence. Nicholas perpetuates the false stereotype of Knights of Columbus as drunkards. Mentioning a fundraising event, he focuses upon the support of "local bars" while missing entirely the object of the charity being furthered. He asks us to imagine ourselves fighting alcoholism, only to find ourselves turned away by the parish priest who is "zonked with the neighborhood drunkards". Again, Nicholas cites isolated cases where problems might have ensued to the avoidance of the good work done by the Church. Thousands of AA meetings are sponsored and held on Church properties. Clergy themselves, who are people too, have joined these groups and have invited others to do the same. Millions of people responsibly and prudently use alcohol with little or no ill effects. But, in cases of abuse, the Church is there to help. Nicholas cites particular incidents where Catholic priests used poor judgment regarding alcohol. I, myself, as a priest, have been very critical of such things, particularly when young people are involved. However, Protestant ministers can also exhibit bad judgment and make mistakes. I would not condemn an entire religious body for the problems of a few. Goodness, even a parish-sponsored carnival earns Nicholas' rebuke. While the issue of gambling is a cause for many debates in Catholic circles, the rule of thumb has been to avoid exploitation of the poor and to provide harmless recreation that will ultimately assist the good work and charity of the Christian community. Nicholas fails to consider this understanding and castigates the Church for what he sees as corruption and taking advantage of the weak. Many people I know even allow the parishes to keep their BINGO winnings since they go not to make money but to have fun with friends. Senior citizens find it a particularly appealing diversion. Many Catholics seek restrictions because they want to reserve most gambling enterprises to those that give back to the community and charity. As for music, it is indeed unfortunate that a parish-run operation would blast music to the disturbance of neighbors. A youth group with which I was affiliated offered monthly dances. The kids themselves would compel the DJ's to censor and avoid songs that offended their Christian sensibilities. This is the ideal. Many Catholics have problems with the expansion of gambling. Nicholas' assertion that gambling operations in some way links the Church to the Mafia is a slur of the highest order. The Holy Father has opposed numerous times their violence and influence in society. As for the archbishop in Dubuque saying that BINGO is a "small thing" while it grossed fifty-one million dollars (1993) in Iowa; Nicholas fails to delineate parish-run BINGO from those privately operated as strictly a business. Church BINGO often takes a backseat to these more professional operations. Compared to their earnings, what the Church receives is certainly a "small thing". This is not to say that it is insignificant. It has maintained some parishes and schools that would not otherwise be viable. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 4
Nicholas mentions a priest who committed a robbery with a former IRA terrorist. Okay, the fellow was a rascal. There are enough of them to go around. However, as I have said before, the bad behavior of ministers or laity does not negate the validity of the Church or of her claims. There are many saints among us as well. Nicholas quotes Fr. Greeley referring to God with a feminine pronoun in several articles. He deduces that there is something wrong with the Catholic Church for preaching such a deceit. Well, it is a distortion of our biblical tradition of calling God "Father" and referring to him with masculine pronouns. Rome and orthodox circles have consistently rejected such inclusive language, while it is true that God, as a perfect Spirit is neither male nor female. We should not hear the proclamation of the Church in what is revisionism and dissent. Rome took over the translation of the new universal catechism when the American text was deemed defective for just such this reason. Nicholas claims that Cardinal Bernadin wrongly said John 8:44 is no longer definitive teaching because it declares Jews to be "children of the devil". Now it seems that Nicholas will do to the Jews what he did to homosexuals, reject them as utterly lost. Could it not be that the good cardinal meant something other than a complete dismissal of Jesus' words? Our Lord often categorized certain groups who opposed him as hypocrites. I would suspect that the cardinal meant precisely this. The condemnation against a few must not be ascribed to an entire people. Nicholas remarks that Catholic greed is so intense that the Church announced it would be "selling tickets" to view his body of the late Cardinal Bernadin. Here is another blatant confusion on the part of Nicolas. His research is quite shoddy. The tickets were to keep good order among the thousands that wanted to pay the final respects. Tickets were free, although many made donations to charity and cancer research. Nicholas claims a priest spoke of St. Stephen being stoned by "fellow believers". Not having the text available, we cannot verify all of what was said. Nicholas ridicules the Catholic Church for supposing that his murderers were fellow Christians. The fact is that the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. It is possible that what the priest meant was that the first martyr died at the hands of fellow Jews. Nicholas is critical of Pope John Paul II's conciliatory remarks to Buddhists as their "friend from Rome". I suppose Nicholas would have us avoid all non-Christians as lost and unworthy of mutual cooperation and dialogue. This attitude is one of the elements that shows how much a sect or cult Nicholas' religion really is. The Holy Father had not compromised the faith in his discussions with Buddhists. Rather, his apology was how his remarks in a small book were received that categorized Buddhism as a form of atheism. Nicholas seems totally unaware about what the real issue was in this case. Religious relativism, of which he accuses Catholics, is rejected as a heresy and sin. I am not entirely surprised by Nicholas' attitude. He refuses to receive correction, himself, and apologizes for nothing-- including his sarcasm and bigotry. Nicholas objects to prayer services with non-Christians, even regarding a matter like world peace. Despite Nicholas' protestations, the Catholic Church does warn her followers from close association with the worship of unbelievers. However, the Church does not shy away from dialogue and friendliness on official channels. The Church prays for the heathen; she does not embrace teachings contrary to the Gospel of Christ. There is no "communion" as such with them. The Catholic Church does not commemorate Hindu feasts. Nicholas makes one false charge after another. He misinterprets the teachings and practices of the Church as severely as he misconstrues the Scriptures. Nicholas responds to the news of Catholic-Orthodox relations and the movement toward unity with great alarm. He uses the phrase, "the first among equals," not understanding that this term applies to the Pope as he is understood in the East. Catholics and Orthodox Christians are in basic agreement on most issues of faith and each has seven sacraments (mysteries). Nevertheless, Nicholas seems to equate reconciliation with the Orthodox as on the same level as with Buddhists. This is utterly nonsensical. Further, he asks how can the churches join, "unless they agree?" Actually, disagreements still impede full ecclesiastical reunion. It may be that Nicholas saw more in the headlines than what actually existed. His rhetoric is confused, but he seems to consider this business "Scripturally wrong" and even calls it a "sin". DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 5
Often Nicholas' statements are quite contradictory. He will say that Catholicism is not true Christianity but a form of pagan worship; and yet, he then says that he understands that the Pope is a "man of God." I suspect his false sincerity is the culprit here. He has no real respect for the Holy Father or the Church. Instead of acknowledging that Pope John Paul II has proclaimed the Gospel at the cost of his own blood when an assassin shot him, Nicholas criticizes the subsequent purchase of a bulletproof "pope-mobile". Coincidentally, it was a donation. The Pope's travels, despite Nicholas' charges, have left him vulnerable to many other assaults, "pope-mobile" or not. Trusting in God does not mean that we should put god on trial or act irresponsibly. Nicholas contradicts himself later by quoting Matthew 4:7: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Cowards often criticize the courageousness of others. The Holy Father stated that "reconciliation' between the communities of a fractured Christianity must include "communion" with the successor of Peter, the Pope. Nicholas erroneously interpreted the word "reconciliation" here has having to do with the individual forgiveness of sins. He fails to understand how words may have different meanings in various contexts. Without any qualification, he makes a blanket rejection of infallibility and tells Catholics that their trust is misplaced and that they have been let down by their religious leaders. Nicholas is very good at empty slogans. He has a hard time processing the facts and finding the appropriate Scriptures to back himself up. Nicholas loves to slam Catholic bishops and priests. He talks about how loyal Catholics "succumb" to their charms and being misled. Is it not possible that a priest's faith might be contagious? Can he not transmit through preaching, worship, and ministry a love and trust in Jesus? Sure he can! If Nicholas used to place more faith in a priest than in Jesus, then he has been confused from the very beginning. That might explain some of his so-called documented facts against Catholicism. Sometimes priests, and even bishops, will mistakenly speak for themselves and not for the Church. When this happens all sorts of problems can develop. If a priest attracts adherents to himself instead of toward the Lord, then he has forgotten what he is about. Nicholas should judge Catholicism, not on its weakest links, but on its saints. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 6
Nicholas explicitly avows a personal and private kind of religion. He asks the question, "Will we not be standing alone on that last day?" While each of us will be held accountable, we are also told that there are a host of witnesses that stand with us. If we have placed our faith in Christ, then we will never be alone. Jesus and all the saints of the Church are in lasting solidarity with us. Nicholas slurs priests and nuns at every opportunity while parading himself as a Catholic whom was informed and devout. His errors in presenting Catholic teaching illustrate that the former is false and his defection indicates that he had no abiding faith or piety toward the Eucharist. He abruptly informs us that the priests and nuns he knew were more interested in giving glory to men than to almighty God. As a Catholic Nicholas practically claims that he idolized them over Jesus. Next he criticizes the statues as the objects of idol worship and the preoccupation with "dead" saints, mere creatures. Does Nicholas believe that the dead are asleep or that they await the last judgment in oblivion? Certainly, there is no incarnational notion in his theology. Catholics may sometimes show deep respect to persons like the Pope or the late Mother Teresa precisely because the Spirit of God is so very active in them. We receive a sense of the living Christ in their words and ministry. This is precisely the role of the saints. They are clear windows to heaven. They provide by their lives a myriad of ways to walk in the footsteps of Christ. Everything is directed to Jesus and his saving work. The failure of Nicholas to understand this, both as a Catholic and now as one opposed to the Church, signifies an ignorance and a proud spirit that has been in him from the very beginning. His attack upon the catechetical listing of the Ten Commandments, as distinguished from the biblical text, is a matter he repeats himself upon in his Scriptural opposition to Catholicism. He quotes the ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CATECHISM but does not admit that Catholic bibles contain the complete text, as does the new universal catechism. The prohibition against making images is not absolute even in Old Testament times. The incarnation of Jesus, as the revelation of the Father, ushers in a new economy regarding images. This appreciation was discussed and settled in the early Church. Nicholas does not shy away from saying things that he must know are not true. He claims that we have eradicated the prohibition against making idols. We have not. Catholicism does NOT sanction the worship of statues or images. We may venerate or treat them with respect because of which they represent but that is all. The Catholic Church has condemned such heinous practices as idol worship (voodoo) in certain Third World countries. Let me repeat, Nicholas is not telling the truth about the use of statues and pictures. His strict prohibition would exclude all religious art. It would impoverish us all. For the illiterate, the bible stories told in stained glass and the history of the Church in saint statuary may be the best reinforcement of true faith that we can give them. While Nicholas cites II Nicea in 787 AD as the council that gave approbation to the use of images (icons), religious art had been used from the earliest days. We even have drawings in the ancient catacombs where the Christians worshipped in secret and hid from the persecution of the pagan Roman emperors. "Image worship" as he calls it has never been established in the Catholic Church. This council merely declared legitimate the ancient and consistent custom of venerating icons and statues. Any man or woman who has kissed the photograph of his beloved has done no more or less. Nicholas claims that the Catholic Church has placed her doctrines over the Word of God. However, Catholic teachings are largely the result of reflection and explanation of divine revelation. The Church is in the service of the Word of God. What Nicholas means is that the Word of God has proclaimed and taught by the Church is in contradiction to the personal interpretation and biases of Nicholas. Nothing more can be said about it. This is the terrible bottom line. Challenge him and he will argue that he offers no interpretation at all. If this were the case he would allow Scripture to speak and add no commentary at all. However, when Catholics offer Scriptures that seem to conflict (actually compliment), he is forced into making qualifications and adjustments. He may even respond with silence, not having any suitable response to give. Of course, the Church does not hold a "sola Scriptura" view and thus argues both from Scripture and from the writings of the fathers and the traditions of the Church. These other elements are not in contradiction to the Word of God but serve as an amplification of the Good News. Because the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit protects the Teaching Church, she can do this. No such safeguard preserves Nicholas from error. Sometimes his statements display a Nicholas in confrontation with himself. What connection he makes between an outdated missal and the current telephone psychics and astrologers is beyond me. The images he scanned from the old book failed to download upon the page I observed. I suspect he misinterpreted drawings in an old book of Mass prayers. Many of these texts offer quite beautiful religious art, especially from the bible. Astrology and fortune telling are superstitions condemned by the Church as a violation of the commandments. Here again, Nicholas tries to fabricate a confrontation with Catholicism where there is essential agreement. He wants to fight, that is all there is too it. If necessary, he will invent issues of contention to insure such conflict. The sad element here is that it perpetuates misrepresentation and hostility. Nicholas claims that the liturgical calendar in the missal he found used the twelve signs of the Zodiac to distinguish the months. While we can question the use of such symbols, they have had a long symbolic use short of any implementation or belief in astrology. Many companies published such books and these symbols would not be found in other editions. The decision of book publishers to add illustrations to the texts of prayer books does not definitely illustrate the mind of the Church. Again, he makes too much of small and inconsequential things. He draws the wrong conclusions, over and over again, creating strawmen arguments that he can easily refute. Nicholas asks what possible Christian connection could be found in the skull and crossbones. Actually, just as it was used to signify poison, it reminds us of the poison of sin that brought death into the world. The skull reminds us of our mortality. The crossbones bring to mind the one that suffered death on our behalf on the cross of Calvary. Jesus died that we might live and have our sins forgiven. There may be other meanings, but that is what comes to mind as I reflect upon it. I am surprised that Nicholas does not draw a connection between the Church and pirates! DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 7
The Catholic Church used Latin initially for the same reason she used Greek, it was the vernacular language of the people. The Church grew and encompassed many peoples speaking different languages. The use of Latin stressed the universality and unity of the Church. Most educated people up until recent times had a working understanding of Latin and even simple people could readily learn and understand the prayers and certain hymns. The early Church was also compelled to use Latin by the fact that the evolving language of the people was not unified in its structure and there were few, if any dictionaries, to regulate the use of words. Even today with our translations, Latin source texts insure that the meaning given to our liturgical prayers and documents will be certain to later generations. This is a peril that must be faced in an environment where language is in constant flux. Ancient prohibitions were against mindless gibberish. Latin is a structured and well-defined language. Ninety percent of the English "written" language possesses Latin derivations. A classical education and a rediscovery of the sources of Western civilization may make Latin live again. The Romance languages, like Spanish, French, and Italian, are highly Latinized still even in their spoken words. The assertion that it died with the Roman nation is not so much anti-Catholicism as it is an opinion voiced from a deep-seated ignorance of history and language itself. Those who desire a restoration of Latin in the liturgy long for the beauty of religious chant and polyphony. They are also concerned that translations often impoverish the Latin prayers. In any case, Nicholas is arguing against an external element of the Church that has largely disappeared. The Mass and other sacraments are now offered in the vernacular. I suspect that Nicholas is parroting older anti-Catholic sources and he is hesitant to relinquish the slightest opportunity to ridicule Catholicism. Nicholas rhetorically asks, "Where is the
sense in preaching in a language that no one on this planet can call their
native tongue?" This criticism does not even apply to the older ritual.
Readings were also rendered in the vernacular (like English) and the preaching
was conducted in the language of the people. Once more, Nicholas gets the
facts wrong. Was he really a Catholic or is he just kidding us? Out of
left field, Nicholas then mentions a man burning with an ardor for souls
being told by his priest to become a monk and to take a vow of silence.
What is this about? While some people devote themselves to the
Next, Nicholas belittles the office of the Pope as a "wanton greed of greatness". Obviously, he has no awareness that the Papacy is a dire responsibility, instituted directly by Christ, making the Pope the "Servant of the Servants of God." Nicholas states that we do not need a human
leader of the Church. Christ felt differently when he told Peter that he
would be the rock upon which he would build his Church. He extended to
him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and three times commanded him to
feed his sheep and flock. Linguistic gymnastics cannot disguise the singular
role of Peter in the Scriptures.
Signs of courtesy possess little in the way of doctrinal content. Even non-Christians have kissed the Pope's ring as a sign of respect for his authority and integrity. If the Pope were the slave of the Church, then such a kiss would be a sign of great humility from us. While it is true that some Popes became overly involved with pomp, the core meaning of the Papacy was undisturbed. He is still the successor of Peter and walks in the shoes of the Fisherman. No Catholic falls at the feet of the Pope to worship him. All true worship finds its source and object in God. This is Catholic doctrine. Why is it Nicholas never plays fair with Catholic teaching? Our oration is directed toward the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. Nicholas is no Catholic. He might have pretended to be one, but it was in name only. He condemns Catholicism as no Church because of her wealth. I suppose he would have the Church sell off the treasures she safeguards for all mankind to private collectors. Very little of the Church's resources are in liquid cash. Her treasure is in art, manuscripts, churches, and schools. Stories to the contrary are not based on the facts that are part of the public record. Many of our priests and ministers suffer under difficult conditions and along with their people know crushing poverty. I have seen this firsthand. It is hard not to get angry about Nicholas' arrogance. A priest friend of mine lives in a mud hut, the sole minister and medic for tens of thousands of people. I have also lost friends to disease and violence in the service of the Gospel. Nicholas spits upon their sacrifice. I can still recall a friend of mine waiting and praying for seminarians on their way to join him in an African mission. When they failed to show, a search was made. He had to identify the corpses of these young men who had been hacked to death and left exposed in the jungle for two weeks. The true treasure of the Church is her poor and the sacrifice of her ministers. Mixing their blood with that of Christ, they have made the Church rich indeed; but not rich in a way that Nicholas could understand. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 8
As a priest I am particularly saddened when someone rejects the central mystery or sacrament of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist. While it is true that Pope Innocent III and Pope Honorius embraced as legitimate the Aristotelian category of transubstantiation in regard to the Eucharist, the belief and reality being explained originated with Christ, himself. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is our inheritance: Mark 14:22-24: And as they were eating, he took bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." The Eucharist was Christ's parting gift to us. It is literally the New Testament itself-- making it present and ratifying it again and again. Jesus gives us his body and blood as the bread of life and our spiritual drink. There is nothing of figurative language about this. If Christ is God and speaks the truth, who are we to call him a liar? Catholics take Jesus at his word. Nicholas claims that Catholics take the words
of consecration in Luke 22:19-20 out of context. However, the words are
understood precisely at a paschal meal traditionally linked to the Exodus
event and the sacrificial lamb with its saving blood. Jesus makes
himself priest and victim. His action at the Last Supper resonates with
his crucifixion on Calvary. He starkly calls the elements his body and
blood, offers them to his apostles, and tells them to repeat it in memory
of him. This is the context. If reduced to the purely symbolic, or rather
nostalgic, it would have little value. The covenant can only be renewed
in the saving action of Christ. Thus, the celebration of the Eucharist
must be everything Catholics claim it to be. Next Nicholas cites John 6:35
wherein Jesus calls himself the "bread of life" and we are told it refers
merely to the "meaning" of life. However, bread is tangible and it nourishes.
Nicholas' testimony that he closed his ears to the Protestant view because
of his fidelity to the Catholic Church rings absolutely hollow. During
his Catholic period, he even fails to define the sacrament properly, stating
that
The Eucharist is the greatest food of all: John 6:26-32: Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food [meat] which perishes, but for the food [meat] which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven." More important than any miraculous food (John 6-11 to 13) or the manna in the desert (Exodus 16-15), the Eucharist is highlighted as our saving food. If there was no change in the elements of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, then our Lord has played us for fools. Such is not the case. There is no deception on Christ's part. A rejection of the Eucharist, by both liberal modernists and by fundamentalist Christians signifies a lack of faith; indeed, it is the intrusion of a sometimes-subtle atheism. The Eucharist is true bread from heaven: John 6:33-35: "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Lord give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." John 6:38: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; . . . ." John 6:41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." John 6:48-51: "I am that bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Eucharist that our Lord gives can only be "bread from heaven" if it is truly himself. Jesus is God; he is the one who has come down from heaven. The principle of concomitance is also affirmed here: Jesus is totally present-- alive and complete-- in every fragment of the Blessed Sacrament. He is not dissected in the Eucharist; rather, he is present and acting on our behalf. He grants us a share in eternal life. He cites the sixth chapter of John and, despite himself, makes the argument for the Catholic Church: "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (52) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" (60) From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (66) Nicholas contends they murmured because they misunderstood Jesus. And yet, our Lord allowed them to walk away. They understood him well enough, and like Nicholas and their other spiritual descendants, they walked away from the saving body and blood of Christ. Jesus meant what he said about the Eucharist. John 6:52-58: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food [meat] indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he who eats me will live because of me. This is that bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." John 6:60: Many of his disciples, when they had heard it, said, "This is an hard saying; who can listen to it? John 6:66-69: After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Will you also go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." The Jews murmured (John 6:41) and abandoned Jesus just as certain so-called Christians (Protestants) reject the Eucharist today. They did not believe that Jesus was God; obviously God could do all things. Nevertheless, Jesus did not compromise or explain away his teaching in any manner. He insisted upon a literal understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist. There was no misunderstanding. Jesus allowed the Jews who would substitute a Protestant view of Eucharist to abandon him. It is bizarre that Protestants can assail the Eucharist and claim that certain disciples misunderstood him when Jesus acted and spoke this way. The truth is that Jesus would even have allowed the twelve apostles to forsake him rather than to give the impoverished Protestant type of Eucharist. Peter responds correctly. Like his many successors, Peter steers the Church toward the truth of Christ. Jesus is God and whatever God says, no matter how fantastic and deep a mystery, is true. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24)." Again, moving from one context to another is the only way that Nicholas can reinforce his false contentions. This verse he offers, comes not in the context of the Eucharistic sayings, but as part of his dialogue with the Samaritan woman at the well. Catholics also teach that God, as God is a perfect Spirit. However, this assertion no more assails the Eucharistic presence of Christ than it does the incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in Jesus of Nazareth. The phrase "in spirit and in truth" is a Hebrew idiom that signifies reliability or absolute truthfulness. The Jews only offered sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. The Samaritans did not designate any one location for sacrifice, as was the ancient practice. Jesus is referring to the fact that in the new dispensation his sacrifice and true worship would not be locked into any one place. Nicholas rejects any re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus at all and thus would evacuate worship of this traditional element. Catholic worship is Christian worship. 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. Hebrews 13:10: We have an altar from which those who serve the tent [the tabernacle of the Jewish temple] have no right to eat. The bible tells us that there is a priesthood and sacrifice under the new covenant of Christ. There is no way that a service of the Word or a Protestant communion service can be considered the sacrificial act that prophecy and St. Paul speaks about. However, we do find such elements in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. We have an altar of sacrifice and a pure offering, nothing other than the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental species. "If anyone denies that that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the Sacrament only as in a sign or figure, or by his power: let him be anathema" (Canon #1 of the Council of Trent on the Eucharist). Slightly truncated and translated differently, this canon is quoted by Nicholas with an emphasis upon the anathema as a sentence of death. Actually, it refers to a self-inflicted breach with the Church. Even the Scriptures are firm regarding the consequences of dissent from the truths of Christ. This makes Nicholas' argument against laws or any moral compulsion quite eccentric. Nicholas quotes canon 6 from Trent on the Eucharist: "If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist (communion wafer), Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or it not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema." Rather than speaking to the issue, Nicholas sidetracks his readers by expounding on the audacity of Catholics in saying that anyone to which this canon applies "must be killed". Nicholas has borrowed the stratagem of THE BIG LIE so well practiced by the Nazis, Communists, and present day Secular Humanists. He gives an inflated definition to "anathema" and equates those actions of past civil states with the will of the Church. The Church preaches a Gospel of Life and her Eucharist is the bread of life. We do not seek to kill those who disagree with us. Nicholas seems less able to deal with cordial and respectful dialogue than with angry opposition. If he gets the former, he seeks to re-image it as the latter. Only the Real Presence demands worthy reception. The following quote touches upon the real meaning of the anathema: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. St. Paul tells us that unworthy reception of Holy Communion is a sacrilege, indeed, it desecrates the real body and blood of Christ. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Such an assertion that the sacrament might bring damnation instead of salvation must be seriously considered. Catholics in mortal sin should not receive the sacrament until that time that they have repented and the sin is absolved. If Holy Communion were no more than bread and wine, this assertion from St. Paul would make NO sense. How can a piece of bread or a sip of wine damn you for all eternity? How could such an empty symbolic gesture desecrate Christ, himself? They could not, unless Catholics are right and the bread and wine are truly transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Despite his ramblings, the "adoration of the communion wafer [Jesus Christ]" is not plainly the idolatrous worship of a deity "made by human hands". The elements of bread and wine are made by human hands from the goods of creation (God's work). The celebrant at the altar allows Christ, our one high priest, to re-present his self-offering. That which is bread and wine is transformed by the words of consecration into the body and blood of Jesus. The appearances of bread and wine remain, but their true substance has been changed to Jesus. This is the sacrament. It is not cannibalism because we do not eat dead and dissected flesh. Rather, each drop of the precious blood and every fragment of the host is the complete risen Jesus Christ. This is our deep and abiding faith. Our attention is not upon bread and wine, but centers on Christ. We do not worship the creature Romans 1:25), but Jesus who is also almighty God and Savior of all. Nicholas not only has no faith in this mystery, he has a real animus against this teaching. It does not surprise me that as he lost his faith in the Eucharist, so went everything else. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 9
Thinking that the Catholic Church had lied to him, Nicholas closed-in upon himself and he allowed his anger to speak to him as he misread the Scriptures. He trusted no one, this is still this case, at his own admission. He comes to the bible and to our Lord utterly alone. The divine mysteries, as expressions of Christ's abiding presence in the family of God, necessarily fell by the wayside. He was left with two sacraments, BAPTISM (Matthew 28:19-20) and COMMUNION (Matthew 26:26-28) and these had been given different meaning. He would contend that only faith gives grace, not sacraments. Again, he creates a duality where none exists. Sacraments without faith have no value. Even a baby is embraced within the faith of a loving family. A principle of the Church is that "whatever is received is received according to the mode of the recipients." The sacraments were made for men, and precisely for those disposed to receive them and the graces available from God. Nicholas quotes Acts 8:36-38 in reference to baptism: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." He makes a lot out of the subtraction to verse 36 and the deletion of verse 37, saying that it was because Catholics opposed a required belief and faith profession prior to baptism. However, there are some Catholic bibles that contain the verses and others place them in footnotes. The actual reason for the differences is that the better texts of antiquity omit the material. Catholic sources contend that it was the Roman Catholic Church of the West itself that added the verse for easier use in baptismal preparation and ritual. It is clear from either version that the eunuch hears the Word and believes. Why else would he say, "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" He suggests a conspiracy where there may only be a serious difference of opinion. Nicholas throws caution to the wind and seems unworried about bearing false witness against Catholicism. His Scripture citation here has nothing to do with a baby unable to reason and actively believe. Catholics hold that parents and the Church can offer this belief on the child's behalf. He puts up nothing serious to challenge this assertion. Why? It is because he nothing. His stance as a man who discounted the need for a Church family with authoritative teachings and ministry requires that he renounce any bond or intercessory role between believers. Parents and godparents cannot profess faith for their child, because in his own image, everyone must stand alone in the face of God. His is a lonely religion where there is no new covenant people and new Israel. The Jews circumcised their male babies and Catholics baptize theirs, male and female. Nicholas will have none of it. No doubt, he renounces his Catholic baptism as a child. Had Nicholas been present, no doubt he would have tried to stop Paul and Barnabas from baptizing the whole household of their jailer. Nicholas confesses that he cannot see how getting married to someone constitutes any granting of grace. I guess we see now just how far he trusts no one. For the person of faith, everything might be counted as grace. The seven sacraments, as I explained, are viewed within the context of faith and the continuing ministry of Jesus. My question to Nicholas would be how could any Christian marriage not bestow grace? Paul uses the marriage analogy in Ephesians 5 to illustrate the intimacy of the relationship between Christ and his Church. Christ identifies himself in the beloved. There is no idolatry in married love. If two believers get married, their faith necessarily transforms the character of that relationship. The covenant is made as a promise to each other and to God. Our Lord is in their love and fidelity toward one another. Wherever you find Jesus, you discover grace. Every act of affection and the marital act itself convey something of the deep and abiding unity we seek in Christ. Nicholas expresses no joy in the wonder of married love. He compounds his confusion by rhetorically asking, "Am I to believe that if I am a relentless sinner enthralled in a life of self serving sin, I can receive grace from God Almighty if I merely get married in the Catholic Church?" His very question is privatized, as if only ONE person can get married. The answer to this is, if either of you are in "relentless" mortal or serious sin, then no marriage or any other sacrament can bring life into a soul that would remain blackened and dead. For anyone to receive actual grace (the helping graces to live out or vocation in life), we must first possess sanctifying (saving) grace. If we hate God then we allow him no entry into our soul. This would make marriage or any other sacrament into a sacrilege. However, if the couple are repentant sinners who love God, then yes, marriage would indeed bring grace. Husbands and wives, by the grace of God, are to be helpmates in assisting one another to respond to God, in becoming true saints. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 10
Nicholas falls into the game of giving only censored facts in order to make his case. Sometimes an argument can be grossly distorted by the absence of details. Such is precisely what happens when Nicholas speaks about the Council of Valencia placing the bible on the INDEX of Forbidden Books in 1229 AD. However, just as with the local French Council of Tarragona, the prohibition was not against the Word of God but against translations that distorted biblical truths. QUANTA CURA by Pope Pius IX (1866) was critical of anti-Catholic "bible societies" just as we need to be guarded of bible study groups today that use selective verses to malign the faith and to proselytize Catholics. An anti-Catholic critic claimed knowing middle-aged ex-Catholics who were not encouraged to read God's Word. I asked a priest in his mid-60's and he said he never heard such a thing; indeed, a special indulgence was granted to anyone who faithfully read the bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." My late aunt admitted that she was hesitant to read the bible for fear of misinterpreting the texts; however, such a personal sentiment cannot be said to reflect a Catholic prohibition. Anti-Catholic apologists themselves use isolated bits-and-pieces to refute Catholic teachings and then accuse the Church of using the same flawed methods. Such just is not the case. Let us look at what the Church has TRULY TAUGHT. First, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) decreed on April 8, 1546, " . . . the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, --seeing that one God is the author of both, . . . ." Decrees were passed against UNAPPROVED and or FAULTY translations of the Scriptures. This is precisely what the later references mentioned by Nicholas were about. Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. From Trent to Vatican II, the suggestion that the Catholic Church has opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue. Second, the prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these said groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach. Such has been the continued problem with gullible Catholics stolen from Christ's Church by anti-Catholic fundamentalist bible study programs, some which particularly target Catholics. Again, this was no disdain for the Holy Scriptures, only for the malicious intent by which some men use them. Third, the concern about bible distribution was that Protestant bibles were being circulated which in missing texts and in footnotes often questioned and ridiculed Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles that reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic. It should be said that some of the translations (if not all) that the Catholic Church condemned, Nicholas would also find problematical. This makes his assertions even more hypocritical. Catholics are in full compliance with the words of Jesus cited by Nicholas. "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15). While the "scriptures" in such passages refer to the Old Testament, the Church would settle the canon and collect the various books of the New Testament for the edification of God's people. The Church has an inseparable relationship to the Scriptures. Nicholas would divorce the two or argue incoherently for a late date of institution for the Catholic Church. Nicholas is quite right that the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture has to be understood within the tradition. These are the two fonts of revelation. Nicholas is very wrong in assuming that tradition is merely the fabrication of men. He cites Scriptures against tradition that reflected practices in vogue prior and contrary to the new dispensation (Mark 7:13; Colossians 2:8). This is quite different from those traditions that arise from Gospel of Christ and are in sync with it. The fact is that Scripture, separated from the living tradition and Magisterium of the Church, loses its grounding and can be easily distorted. Tradition is also a work of God, guided by the Holy Spirit. The assertion that the authenticity of the Scriptures rests entirely upon itself is an argument that runs counter to the facts and the history of God's people. The Church collected and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the source for the New Testament. Before one word of the Gospel was written, there was the ministering and teaching Catholic Church. The notion that Old Testament prophecies legitimate the Bible fail to recognize that the promise was given to the Jewish people, the first people called by God to be in covenant with him. There are no Scriptures separated from a community established by God. The Catholic Church recognizes that Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah do indeed point to Jesus. This is not a matter of debate. Some anti-Catholic bigots think otherwise. Christianity is Not a Book Religion Romans 10:17: So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. 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. Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." There is nothing here about a book-religion or any kind of bible-alone church. Rather, we see what the Catholic Church has done for two thousand years. Tradition Supplements the Scriptures John 20:30-31: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. On one hand the Church is told that the Holy Spirit will teach the Church all things, and yet there is the admission in Scripture itself that it does not include everything. The early Church practices and extends its faith with only a partially written account of Christ's life and teachings. The living tradition of the Church does not replace the biblical testimony, but supplements and helps to interpret it. Commanded to Keep Traditions 2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Timothy 2:2: . . . and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. If these statements did not appear in the bible, I would suspect that "bible alone" believers would immediately pounce upon them as distortions of the truth by Catholics. Most ministers actually avoid such passages, perhaps with the hope that if ignored, they might go away? The Catholic Church is the most literal bible Church of all in that she makes the entirety of Scripture her own. We keep alive the faith and traditions which come down to us from the Apostolic Church. A number of years passed before the final composition of the New Testament. Some say the Book of Revelation may have been finished as late as 100 AD. And yet, there is a letter from Clement, the bishop of Rome, in other words, a Catholic Pope, written to the Corinthians in 93 AD. The Catholic Church was teaching and preaching even before the bible was completed. This is a historical fact! The first complete compilation of the New Testament was not officially completed until the Council of Constantinople in 397 AD. This runs smack in the face of those who claim only private interpretation of the Scriptures. The bible, from beginning to end, is the Catholic Church's BOOK. It was only after the persecution of Christians and the peace given by Constantine in 313 AD that the Church could share the inspired documents preserved by various congregations. The bishops would then have to authenticate the writings, deeming which ones were doctrinally sound and also inspired. If this decision was deemed infallible and such is implicit by our acceptance of the New Testament books, then this Church is still infallible. If not, then the New Testament can be disregarded as inconclusive. Non-Catholics are unable to go back to review the work of Catholic scholars and bishops since the source documents have long returned to dust. Catholic monks throughout the centuries copied the original papyruses. Protestants must, on this account, TRUST that the Catholic Church worked under divine inspiration. If this is the case for the past, then why not now? This also casts dispersion on any theory of private bible-alone interpretation. Before the invention of the printing press (1440 AD), bibles were scarce and the cost was prohibitive. Most people were not literate. The Church made recourse to ritual and art to get across the Scriptural message. Any bible alone notion would have excluded the majority from any real comprehension of the truths of Christ and our stories of faith. This would have been ludicrous! To insure that the bible was not lost, they were often secured in churches so that the unscrupulous would not steal or destroy them. Faith-filled religious spent their whole lives copying the Scriptures by hand. Such care and self-sacrificing devotion is a sure rebuttal against those bigots who insist that Catholics tried to destroy the bible. Nicholas throws out a challenge, asking his readers to note a list of so-called inventions of the Catholic Church, and to ask a priest to prove them Scripturally. This request itself does not respect the difference between the sources of Christian revelation between Protestantism and Catholicism. If Catholicism teaches that tradition has value, then to utterly submit to his request would be an exercise in reductionism. The Catholic Church should not and will not lower herself to his level. Nicholas accepts as his frame of reference a notion of faith that is absolutely stagnant. He cannot explicitly acknowledge any tradition or development of doctrine. Catholicism, on the other hand, would tell us that faith demands theological reflection. The seed planted by Jesus and the Apostles cannot be discarded, and yet it can be nurtured and allowed to grow. Nicholas would wipe out 2,000 years of maturation and attempt to start over again with a current point of reference. Adopting an entirely individualistic religion, he becomes the one great father of faith-- he becomes the strong arm of the emperor-- he becomes the voice of the ecumenical councils-- he becomes the pope. Reservations aside, and discarding Nicholas' dare, I will comment, as a priest, upon the items he mentions. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 11
NICHOLAS WRITES: 2nd Century - Elders were first called priests by Lucian. Jesus is the great High Priest. The Christian community participates in this priesthood on two levels: in baptism and in ordination. The Lord's Last Supper uses the pattern of the Passover as the framework for the institution of the Eucharist and the priesthood. It resonates with the cross upon which the Lamb of God will pour out his blood for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus tells his apostles to offer this ritual in living memory (anamnesis) of him. Their ministry at the altar table will be one with his at the cross. They are made priests of the new dispensation. The Scriptures call this role by many names. The word episcopoi (bishop) became popular in regards to the full successors of the apostles. Those given lesser authority of jurisdiction were called presbyters (priests). The following Scriptures are useful: Mark 16:14-18; Matthew 28:16-20; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Corinthians 4:1-4; and 1 Peter 5:1-4. Bishops and Priests are Given Charge Over the Sacraments 2 Corinthians 5:18-20: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 1 Corinthians 4:1: This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. John 20:21: Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so send I you. Bishops and priests are the ministers of Christ in our world. They represent him and, in the sacraments, make him actively present. This is a most serious calling. A poor priest does not, in itself, repudiate this high calling. As living signs of contradiction, in the footsteps of the Master, they are mocked and slandered by a world that still does not understand Jesus or the Gospel. The Vocation of Holy Orders is a Gift Hebrews 5:1: For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed [ordained] to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Hebrews 5:4: And one does not take honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. John 15:16: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed [ordained] 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." John 20:21: Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so send I you. The Lord chooses us, we do not choose him. No where is this more evident than in priesthood. It is not something anyone deserves. It cannot be made an item on anyone's social justice agenda for inclusion. Thus, the practice of Protestant congregations ordaining their own is unscriptural. The people in the pews have no authority to commission preachers. Rather, a divine calling is ratified and brought to completion through the Apostles and their legitimate successors. The Apostles and their Successors Titus 1:5: This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint [ordain] elders [priests] in every town as I directed you, . . . . Acts 13:2-3: While they were worshipping 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. The Scriptures make the strongest possible case for apostolic succession. Holy Orders is what we call this transmission of apostolic authority and power down through the ages. NICHOLAS WRITES: 3rd Century - Sacerdotal mass instituted by Cyprian. Cyprian was a great teacher and saint of the Church, but he did not invent the Mass. We even have some documentation of Eucharistic prayers going back to the second century. Where ever you find the Eucharist, you find the priesthood and the Church. Nicholas is quite wrong. He would contend that there is no need of Catholic priests or of the sacrifice of the Mass; rather, we have Christ and all is accomplished on the cross already. A favorite quote used by anti-Catholics, out of context of course, is Hebrews 7:27: "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself." While there was no requirement for daily sacrifice in the law of Moses, such a feature was prescribed for the Day of Atonement. Of course, what we can readily contrast are the repeated sacrifices of the Hebrews and the singular oblation of Jesus. True atonement could not be achieved by their sacrifices, and yet, such was expected between the fallen creature and his Creator. Indeed, the practice of making sacrifices, even in pagan religions, shows that there is an innate awareness of this responsibility imprinted upon nature itself. The sacrifices of the Old Testament are in preparation for and point to the redemptive cross. Chosen by God, the Jewish people were made righteous by their faith and fidelity to the covenant; and yet, even their beloved dead, preserved from the fires of hell, would have to await the descent of our crucified Lord before entering into paradise. As the catechisms explain, Christ took upon his shoulders the death we deserved and the heavy burden of sin. He conquers them, but they have yet to be undone in human history. The gates of heaven are opened and as our Mediator, Jesus makes possible our entry into the heavenly home. Apart from Christ, any human sacrifice was only of a finite measure and could not make full reparation for the infinite dishonor against God caused by the primordial sin and our subsequent collaboration through personal sin. The Eucharist or Mass is the Christian's sacramental way of making himself present to the great mystery of Calvary. Christ dies ONCE and FOR ALL; however, this saving mystery is extended through space and time by the Eucharist. Christ has died and will never die again. We do not have Christ killed upon our altars again and again. The Mass makes time travelers of us all, albeit through sacred signs. We see the image of a cross or crucifix, but it is the altar-table which most resonates with the cross of Christ. We see a priest at the altar and yet he acts in the person of Christ, the head of the Church. The cultic language of the Last Supper links it with his saving death. We see many different men function as priests, and yet their priesthood participates in the ONE PRIESTHOOD of Jesus Christ. He is the high priest of the Catholic Christian faith. The only difference from the initial historical death of Christ and its actual re-presentation in the Mass is our ability now to join ourselves to him. We can surrender ourselves along with Christ, joined inextricably to him, as one perfect sacrifice to the heavenly Father. We are faithful, generation after generation, in keeping his great command: "Do this in remembrance of me" (see Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). This "anamnesis" is a living memory, making present that which is recalled and signified. NICHOLAS WRITES: 300 AD - Prayers for the deceased. Again, Nicholas is deceptive. There is evidence all throughout the persecution of Christians that they remembered their dead. We find inscriptions of such activity in the catacombs and upon tombs. The early Christian community inherited such prayer from the Jews. 2 Maccabees 12:42-46 - Jews Prayed for the Dead. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were lain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. While this book has been deleted from Protestant bibles, it does show us, nevertheless, the mentality of faithful and practicing Jews near the time of Christ. NICHOLAS WRITES: 300 AD - The sign of the cross adopted as beginning and ending of prayer. Nicholas is against the sign of the cross as well? It is a prayer gesture that invokes the Trinity, shows faith in Jesus Christ crucified, and summons divine protection. What is wrong with any of this? It flows naturally from the redemptive work of Christ and the commission to go out to all the world and to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian attests to its usage as a personal gesture as early as 230 AD. We can presume it started much earlier. NICHOLAS WRITES: 320 AD - Wax candles. Ah, excuse me, but besides oil what else does Nicholas think people, in the Church or otherwise, used for illumination inside and at night? Candles served practical and ceremonial purposes quite naturally. Even today, candles are used for all sorts of memorials and vigils. They have been used from the earliest days. The Christians of the post-apostolic Church used them in front of the martyrs' tombs. Later, with the translation of the saints' remains to the churches, the custom of a light burning before them was continued. Indeed, Christ himself is depicted in Revelation 1:12 is portrayed with seven candles representing the churches of Asia: "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 . . . ." Their use in the Catholic Church expanded over the centuries. They symbolized in the Paschal Candle, Jesus who is the Light of the world, dispelling the darkness of sin and death. They represented the prayers of Christians in the votive lights before relics or the depiction of a saint. They signified the abiding presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament in the vigil light or lamp. Placed near or upon the altar, they illuminate and draw attention to the table of the Lord's Supper. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, pt. 12
NICHOLAS WRITES: 375 AD - Veneration of angels, dead saints, and images of same. (Veneration = profound respect, reverence, worship, adoration, idolization). Recently Nicholas sent me a post where he criticized me for using my intelligence in answering his questions. Here is an instance where we find the anti-Catholic actually practicing what he preaches, arguing out of ignorance. He makes no distinction between the veneration of holy personages or their depictions and the worship that is directed properly to God alone. I hope that Nicholas is not married. If he were consistent, any affection or honor he showed his wife would be tantamount to idolatry. Does he not appreciate that his contentions automatically bring disgrace upon himself and dishonor to almighty God? Yes, Nicholas, Catholics offer veneration of the holy messengers of heaven and the saints of the human family. Why? It is because they are imbued with the grace and holiness of God. Their veneration is praise of the Creator. This veneration (dulia, hyperdulia) is different than adoration or divine worship (latria). Catholics do not give divine worship to saints or even to Mary. The charge of idolatry is without merit. The Catholic Church remembers her family of faith, especially her heroes; Nicholas cannot appreciate this because he belongs to a stale religion of ONE, and when he looks to Jesus, he is really just looking into the mirror. Thank the Lord that the true Savior is nothing like the one he presents-- a God out to get us-- an angry Jesus. Images are not forbidden in the new dispensation, nor was it totally the case under the old law: Exodus 25:18: And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Numbers 21:8-9: And the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." John 3:14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." 1 Kings 6:29: He carved all the walls in the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. (Also verses 32 and 35). The prohibition against images was never absolute. Further, there is a new economy of images due to the incarnation. Jesus is the revelation of the Father. Our very humanity becomes reflective of God. The Scriptures show that God often used images to deepen religious commitment and understanding. The prohibition against "graven images" applies to idolatry, the sin of giving the adoration reserved to God alone to some mere thing. It is peculiar that some critics will oppose the Church's use of sacred art and yet they often have trophies, statuary, toy dolls, photographs, and paintings in their homes. Images that inspire faith and remind us of particularly holy and courageous members of our faith are no more wrong than such pictures of family and friends in our homes. The use of relics illustrates something of Catholic veneration, too: 2 King 2:8-14: Elijah's mantle. Exodus 7:10: Aaron's rod. Matthew 9:20-21: Matthew 14:36: The hem of the garment worn by our Lord. Acts 19:12: . . . so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Acts 5:15-16: . . . so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed." It was only natural that Christians, from the very earliest days, would hold onto mementos of the saints. Relics remind us that holiness is real and that some of our number has followed Christ in spectacular ways. The veneration of relics of saintly persons or things is recommended by the bible. However, such regard is not the same as the worship that belongs to God alone. We do not pray to such objects or treat them superstitiously as powerful in themselves; we honor what they signify. The secular world does similar things. A person might cherish a lock of hair from his beloved. A nation might treat with respect the great patriotic symbol that is the flag. Our veneration of the saints is not a case of prayers falling upon deaf ears: Ephesians 2:19: So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, . . . . Acts 12:7: . . . and behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, "Get up quickly." And the chains fell off his hands. Hebrews 1:14: Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation? Luke 15:10: "Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents." Those of our family of faith in heaven are actively concern about our well being. Insofar as God allows, they intercede on our behalf. We honor the saints as our friends and even name the angels among our heavenly protectors. The particular veneration shown to Mary even finds Scriptural support: Luke 1:43 - Early Honor Shown Mary, the
Mother of God.
Luke 1:48 - Perpetual Honor Shown Mary,
Blessed of God.
Exodus 20:12 - Imitate the Honor Jesus
Showed Mary.
Nicholas' contention comes falling apart like
a house of cards in a strong wind.
|