Category Archives: Epistemology

Church History, Epistemology, Eschatology, Infallibility, Papal Infallibility, Tradition

As God Sitteth in the Temple

12 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” — 2 Thessalonians 2:4

One of the most refreshing fruits of the Francis I pontificate is that it has awakened Roman Catholics to the truth that apostasy can originate from within the church. Paul warned,

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Of this “falling away,” or apostasia, Paul included a chilling note. It would begin from within: “the son of perdition … as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Indeed, speaking to bishops who could justifiably boast succession from the Apostles, he warned: “of your own selves shall men arise” (Acts 20:30). And Peter warned as well: “there shall be false teachers among you” (2 Peter 2:1). As we have observed repeatedly here, the Great Apostasy occurred in the late 4th century, bursting forth as a veritable font of liturgical, ecclesial and doctrinal novelty and error. It manifested upon the earth as what we now know as Roman Catholicism. It originated from within, for one cannot “fall away” from without.

The historical Roman Catholic objection to such a claim is as predictable as it is banal: “But that would mean Jesus has not kept His promise in Matthew 16. If the church ever fell into apostasy, then that would make Jesus a liar!” We invite the reader’s attention to such examples as this, which claims that “There was no great apostasy of true Christianity” because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Or this comment, in which a reader claimed that there could never be a widespread apostasy because Jesus promised that “the gates of hell would not prevail against the church.” Such objections presume first that we are claiming that the “True Church” could apostasize (we are not) and second, that Roman Catholicism is that “True Church” (it is not).

When we cite 2 Thessalonians 2:11 about the “strong delusion” by which God Himself would cause the vast majority to “believe a lie,” the Roman Catholic responds in a similar vein: “That is not possible because that would mean God purposely spread heresy and is the source of heresy.” Such responses again presume that Roman Catholicism is immune to error, and thus immune to an apostasy. Thus, the Roman Catholic historically has ruled out the very thing the Apostles clearly ruled in: that the great falling away would sweep up much of the church in its wake. Continue reading As God Sitteth in the Temple →

Email, RSS Follow
Church History, Epistemology, Papal Primacy, Roman Primacy

Apostle to the Jews

77 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
Peter
“…God made choice among us…” — Acts 15:7

One of the blessings of the chronological record of the life of Christ’s apostles is the ability to peer into their personal growth as they transition from common men to passionate evangelists. The carnal ambition and obstinacy of John, James, Peter and the rest are on full display, and Paul’s unrestrained indignation at the New Way is well-documented. But they came around, and their transformations are both informative and inspiring.

But at one point in their sanctification, Peter and Paul appear to come to opposite conclusions about something that ought to have been quite clear: each appeared to think God had chosen him to be the apostle to the Gentiles.

At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter appeared to be quite sure God had chosen him for the task:

“Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7)

But in his letter to the Galatians, Paul was quite sure God had committed that ministry to him, and that Peter’s ministry was to the Jews:

“… the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Galatians 2:7-8)

Their inscripturated teachings support Paul’s assessment, for Peter wrote to the “diaspora (διασπορά),” the “scattered exiles” in Asia minor: “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). These “scattered exiles” are the same “twelve tribes of the disaspora” to whom James wrote (James 1:1). Indeed, many thousands of Jews had been relocated to Asia Minor by Antiochus III centuries earlier. The region is precisely where many of the “diaspora” had been scattered. Paul, on the other hand, wrote to the gentiles (Romans 11:13), as his many letters also attest, for God had sent him “far hence unto the Gentiles” (Acts 22:21).

So, who was “Apostle to the Gentiles”? Was it Peter? Or was it Paul? Was either, or were both, confused? Continue reading Apostle to the Jews →

Email, RSS Follow
Apparitions, Church Fathers, Epistemology, Infallibility, Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia, Tradition

One Billion Denominations

13 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” — Job 38:2

A typical accusation made of Protestants by Roman Catholics is that they are so divided. There are ostensibly at least 35,000 Protestant denominations, but only One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. Such a stark comparison is often sufficient for a wavering Protestant to capitulate in despair. Since his conversion to Roman Catholicism, the subject of our previous series, Mr. Joshua T. Charles, has shouted from the rooftops that the unified Roman religion with its Tradition and teaching Magisterium has finally set him free from the divisions and errors of Protestantism. Protestants constantly disagreed about everything, and at some point, he just could not stand it any more. Here is a small sampling of his Twitter criticism just from last month:

“I was protestant until I was 31. As such, the furthest I could get was different interpretations of the Bible. No one could say ‘thus saith the Lord’ as to which one was right. Good, educated people differed on every issue under the sun.” (June 4, 2023)

“I’m very, very, very glad I am no longer a protestant. Among all the interpretations, where is the true one? On so many issues that have been long settled in the Catholic Church, protestants continue to divide & fall into more errors, with no one capable of resolving the debate.” (June 10, 2023)

“[That’s] Why I am Catholic today. Interminable, unresolvable debates where the best any of us had was our best guess was unacceptable. I wanted to follow Jesus.” (June 13, 2023)

From this small sampling, which is indeed representative of Mr. Charles’ chronic indignation, we might suppose that the solution he had stumbled upon in Rome was a single authoritative source of clear teachings that removed all doubt, dispute and debate in the interpretation of the Bible, Tradition, the Magisterium. At last, no more error, guesswork, difference and revision, no more heresy, schism, contradiction and division! Nothing but smooth sailing! Continue reading One Billion Denominations →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Church History, Epistemology, Sola Ecclesia, Tradition

“Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 7

1 Comment
Email, RSS Follow
“…of making many books there is no end…” — Ecclesiastes 12:12

We conclude this week with our response to Mr. Joshua T. Charles’ claim that he had found “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius of Antioch’s seven letters from 107 AD. Joshua claimed to have found “point by point” the tenets of Roman Catholicism in Ignatius’ letters to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and to bishop Polycarp. We have now covered all ten — the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ in Part 2, the New Testament priesthood, Episcopal Succession and Episcopal Authority in Part 3, Roman Primacy in Part 4, Baptismal Regeneration and Losing Salvation in Part 5 and Heresy, Schism and “Big ‘C’ Catholicism” in Part 6. Mr. Charles never ceases to comment on the divisions and denominations that occur under the umbrella of Protestantism. He claims that he finally found stable relief for his tossed and wearied soul when he discovered the pacific seas and verdant pastures of an undivided Roman religion — free of all the contradictory interpretations, confusion, disagreements and lack of apostolic roots.

In our series thus far we have responded to the “ten points” of Roman Catholicism that he thought he had found in Ignatius, and today we shall briefly summarize our responses to them. But as we move forward, we shall also consider Mr. Charles’ utter lack of self-awareness in his triumphalistic analysis of a peaceful, undivided, unified Roman epistemology vis-a-vis the divisive, schismatic and hopelessly indefinite Protestant epistemology he abandoned. What he has done is abandon the Rock upon which Christ built His church, in order to embrace an epistemology of sand. In his perusal of “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, he has not found ancient Roman Catholicism in their writings. Rather he has merely engaged in Roman Catholicism’s longstanding practice of shadow puppetry, casting medieval shadows upon an ancient patristic backdrop, obscuring rather than illuminating their original works. In truth, neither the early church, nor modern Rome, is any more free of divisions than what is observed within the “Protestant” tent. The difference is not between unity and division, but rather what the respective parties are divided about. Continue reading “Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 7 →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Church History, Papal Primacy, Roman Primacy

“Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 4

3 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…of making many books there is no end…” — Ecclesiastes 12:12

As we continue in our analysis of the genuine works of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD), we focus this week on the Roman Catholic claim that Roman Primacy can be found in his letters. In this series we have been assessing the claims of Mr. Joshua T. Charles, a former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism because Ignatius of Antioch “red pilled” him into the truth. Mr. Charles, repeatedly claims to have read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, finding Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.” He was particularly surprised to find “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius’ letters, “point by point,” which “was apparent in just seven short letters.”

Of the 10 points he listed, we have covered five so far — the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in Part 2, and the New Testament priesthood, Episcopal Succession and Episcopal Authority in Part 3. As we demonstrated last week, because of Mr. Charles’ approach he finds more in Ignatius than Ignatius actually wrote, and indeed much more than even Mr. Charles bargained for. He claimed that Ignatius described a New Testament priesthood composed “primarily” of bishops based on Luke 10:16 — “He who hears you, hears me” — but we found that Mr. Charles had relied on the longer Greek recension of Ignatius’ letters, a recension the Catholic Encyclopedia denies to be authentic. Only the shorter recension is considered genuine, and those genuine letters do not apply Luke 10:16 to the Apostles. In fact, Luke 10:16 was spoken not to the Twelve but to the Seventy. Thus, anyone who claims to have found a succession of apostolic priests based on Luke 10:16 has completely misunderstood the verse, and anyone who claims to have found that construct in Ignatius is reading something he did not write. In fact, if we were to take Mr. Charles’ approach seriously, we would have found in the longer recension not only an unending line of priests that succeeded from the Seventy, but also an unending line of priests that succeeded from the Seven (Acts 6:1–8), since Ignatius is quite clear that he believed the Deacons had been “entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (to the Magnesians 6) and “the mysteries of Jesus Christ” (to the Trallians 2). And Jesus’ ministry is both priestly and prophetic.

This week we continue with the eighth point Mr. Charles found in Ignatius:

8. The Church of Rome has greater authority than other churches;

Continue reading “Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 4 →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Church History, Idolatry, Roman Primacy

“Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 3

23 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…of making many books there is no end…” — Ecclesiastes 12:12

We continue this week with our analysis of the works of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD). We have been assessing the claims of a former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism because of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius, he claims, “red pilled” him into the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Joshua T. Charles, former White House speech writer, former Protestant and now apologist, has read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers and claims to have found Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.” He was particularly surprised to find “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius’ letters, “point by point,” which “was apparent in just seven short letters.” As we showed last week, however, in his claims regarding the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mr. Charles is reading those “thousands of pages” through a myopic medieval lens, leading to an interpretation that the native context does not bear out. To Ignatius, “the Eucharist” was the tithe offering for the widow, the orphan and the stranger (Smyrnæans, 6), and the ancient church indeed sacrificed the Eucharist as part of its weekly worship. But to them, the Eucharist was the offertory, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (Philippians 4:18; Hebrews 13:15-16), a sacrifice Protestants still offer today. Additionally, we showed that in Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnæans, which Mr. Charles provided as evidence, all three uses of “Eucharist” were in reference to unconsecrated bread, and therefore cannot be references to the “real presence” of Christ. In sum, it is true that the ancient Church included an offertory in their weekly gatherings, but it is also true they did not believe Jesus was “really present” in the Eucharist and they did not believe they were sacrificing Him in the Lord’s Supper. What we continue to find as we evaluate Mr. Charles’ claims is that he tends to reject that which contradicts his preconceptions, and is naïvely receptive of data known to be spurious, redacted and fraudulent. Because of this, his reading of Ignatius is foreign to, and ignorant of, the native context of his letters.

 Of the ten “points” Mr. Charles identified from Ignatius, we covered two last week — the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Presence — and will address three more in this entry:

2. The New Testament ministerial priesthood;

6. Authority in the Church is exercised by bishops who are successors of the Apostles (apostolic succession);

7. Lay Christians must be under a successor of the Apostle’s authority, and cannot start their own independent congregations;

Continue reading “Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 3 →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Church History, Eucharistic Sacrifice

“Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 2

3 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…of making many books there is no end…” — Ecclesiastes 12:12

We continue this week with our analysis of the works of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD). Last week, we assessed the methodology of a typical Roman Catholic apologist who claims to have been “red pilled” into the truth by his writings. Mr. Joshua T. Charles, former White House speech writer, former Protestant and now apologist, reminds his Twitter followers repeatedly that he has read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers and was surprised to find Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.” As we showed last week, however, Mr. Charles is either highly selective in his reading or highly selective in his use of data—either rejecting that which contradicts his preconceptions, or reinterpreting contrary data as if it supported his position, and in many cases naïvely receptive of data known to be spurious, redacted and fraudulent.

As we noted last week, Mr. Charles claimed that he was surprised to find “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius’ letters, “point by point.” Of the ten “points” he identified, we will address two today:

1. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist;

3. Christian worship = the sacrifice of the Eucharist;

Continue reading “Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 2 →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Church History, Papal Primacy, Roman Primacy

“Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 1

5 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…of making many books there is no end…” — Ecclesiastes 12:12

John Henry Newman, erstwhile Anglican, then Roman Catholic Apologist, Cardinal and finally “Saint,” famously claimed in 1845 that “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” Ever since, that empty rallying cry has served as a substitute for actual scholarship, as ignorant Roman Catholics, clergy and lay, claim without justification to be “deep in history.” And yet a simple examination of the evidence reveals just how shallow in history the Roman Catholic actually is.

Joshua T. Charles, former White House speech writer and self-described historian, believes that he, too, is now deep in history, and has converted to Roman Catholicism. In his words — and there are plenty of them — he has read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, and was surprised to discover Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.”

Yet, upon inspection it is clear that while he may have looked at tens of thousands of pages, he did not read them all, and those he did read, he interpreted though a medieval Roman Catholic lens instead of in their native historical context. And still others, heavily redacted by the scholars, are made to appear Roman Catholic while obscuring their very “Protestant” underpinnings. This fact the scholars freely and often admit, though Mr. Charles appears to be ignorant of it. And thus, skimming the Early Church Fathers, interpreting them through a carefully crafted medieval lens, swallowing whole the grotesque redactions and intentional mistranslations, Mr. Charles thinks to have arrived at the Church Jesus Christ founded. Instead he has arrived at a tasteless and extravagant imitation of it. And that, says Mr. Charles, is the church to which we should all convert.

In this series we will explore just one claim from his manifold twitter files: that on “point after point” Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD) taught “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine.” The claim is false, and Mr. Charles is not nearly so very “deep in history” as he imagines. But he is not alone. Cardinal Newman wasn’t very deep in history either.

Continue reading “Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 1 →

Email, RSS Follow
Apparitions, Church Fathers, Idolatry, Mariolatry, Mary

The Mother of My Lord

30 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign…” — Isaiah 7:14

It has become fashionable of late to convert to Roman Catholicism, a phenomenon with which we interact occasionally in our podcast, The Diving Board. It is there that we examine, and then refute, the reasons the typical Protestant gives when deciding to convert. The problem of Mary is often the last stumbling block to fall, but when it does, the floodgates of hyperlatria open wide, and an embarrassing superfluity of worship is heaped upon her. After all, the Roman Catholic priest can “command God … and make Him come down to the altar” to be offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but has “no commands to give His holy Mother, who does as She pleases.” So taught the Apparition of Mary at La Laus, France in 1664. And on that basis, the apparitions were determined to be authentic. Not because “Mary” appeared as a humble handmaiden but because she had appeared as Virgin Most Powerful and Queen of the Universe, utterly free of any constraint to her will. Unlike her hapless “Son” who gets bossed around daily like a chump, nobody tells Mary what to do. That is why the Apparition of Mary at La Laus was considered authentic, and the curse of hyperlatria is the wretched misfortune that awaits the Protestant who stumbles into devotion to her.

Continue reading The Mother of My Lord →

Email, RSS Follow
Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia

Last to Know, Part 6

6 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“Whose soever sins ye remit … and … retain …” — John 21:23

In our last entry, we demonstrated that the entire exchange between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 was centered on the Word of God that Jesus had come to preach, a ministry He would shortly confer on the apostles.  Jesus had been commissioned to “bind up the brokenhearted” and “to proclaim … the opening of the prison to them that are bound” through the preaching of Good Tidings (Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18), and had come as the Good Shepherd to “bind up that which was broken” and to loose “the bands of their yoke” (Ezekiel 34:16,27). His preaching ministry was nothing other than a ministry of binding and loosing—binding the wounded and loosing the captives—by delivering the Good Tidings from His Father. He commissioned the disciples to do the same after Him: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). The disciples, too, therefore received a ministry of binding and loosing — that is, preaching the Good Tidings — and so Jesus sent Peter and the rest off to “bind” and to “loose” (Matthew 16:19, 18:18), just as He had been.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 6 →

Email, RSS Follow
Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia

Last to Know, Part 5

16 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…and whatsoever thou shalt bind [up] … and … loose on earth…” — Matthew 16:19

When Peter, the last of the apostles to believe, finally confessed that he knew and believed that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus responded that the information had been revealed to him by His Father. In view of the harmonized Loaves Narrative we compiled in Part 1, Jesus had identified Peter’s response as a fulfillment of Isaiah 54:13 — “all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” — just as his followers throughout the Loaves miracles had also fulfilled that same prophecy (John 6:45). As we noted in Part 3, Jesus’ promise to “build My church” upon “this rock” was plainly a reference to the “stone” foundation of His own Father’s Word, the solid foundation He had identified in Isaiah 54. His next statement — “the gates of hell shall not prevail” — as we showed in Part 4, was just one of many restatements of Jesus’ promise that people who believe His Father’s words would not perish: “He that heareth my word, and believeth … is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). We also showed that His promise to give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—Knowledge and Faith—was a simple reference to the ministry of preaching that Jesus would confer upon the apostles after bestowing the Spirit. In sum, the entire conversation with Peter occurred in the context of Jesus completing His task to preach His Father’s Words, and His plan to commission His disciples to do the same. It is therefore no surprise that Jesus’ next words carried the same meaning: “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). Roman Catholicism has long desired to apply the power to bind and loose to a carnal, administrative ecclesiastical power to enslave the souls of men. But Jesus’ words mean nothing other than this: that He had received a task from His Father to preach the Good News, and had commissioned His disciples to preach that Good News after Him.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 5 →

Email, RSS Follow
Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia

Last to Know, Part 4

30 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” — Matthew 16:18

As we noted in our previous entry, it is assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus promised to build His Church upon “this rock,” Peter. When that invalid assumption is allowed, Jesus’ next words — “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” — are infused with Petrine significance, as if the perseverance of the Church rested upon the shoulders of Peter and his successors.  And when that assumption is allowed, His next words about “the keys of the kingdom” and binding and loosing, are infused with Magisterial authority. However, as we demonstrated in our harmonization of the Loaves Narratives, Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession was made in the context of Isaiah 54, a context established by the Johannine account: “It is written in the prophets [Isaiah 54:13), ‘And they shall be all taught of God'” (John 6:45). In Matthew, Jesus confirms that context, explaining that Peter had converted because the Father had taught him (Matthew 16:17). The benefit of harmonizing the Loaves Narratives is that we need not wonder what Jesus was thinking when He responded to Peter’s confession. He was thinking about the preaching ministry described Isaiah 54. Isaiah 54 not only identifies upon which “rock” Jesus  would build His church, but also why the the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And when we see that the Apostles were commissioned, as Jesus had been, to preach the Word of the Father, we see plainly what Jesus meant by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 4 →

Email, RSS Follow
Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia

Last to Know, Part 3

26 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
” … I will build my church … ” — Matthew 16:18

It is commonly assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter” because He planned to build His Church upon “this rock.” Catholic Answers, for example, says Jesus did this to assign to him “a particular powerful role” as “the foundation stone of the Church.” And yet, the Scriptures nowhere say why Jesus changed his name. Where the Scriptures do give reasons for assigning or changing names, we safely grasp the meanings. Where the Scriptures do not give the reason, we are not at liberty to assign a meaning on our own. The fact is, as with several other name changes and assignments in the Bible, the Scriptures provide no explicit reason for calling Simon “Peter.” Context, however, provides the information we need.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 3 →

Email, RSS Follow
Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia

Last to Know, Part 2

3 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“… upon this rock …” — Matthew 16:18

We left off last time with a harmonized account of the loaves narratives, in which the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Feeding of the 4,000 were integrated into a single harmonized narrative using information from all four Gospels, beginning with the death of John the Baptist and ending with Peter’s confession of faith. That confession is typically taken to mean Peter was the first to believe, but in reality he was clearly the last. Jesus’ response to him should be understood in that context. From this harmonized account we understand statements that have confounded Roman Catholics, but are clear in the light of God’s revelation to us in the Scriptures. We understand what it means to eat “the true bread from heaven”, to “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood”, why the loaves miracles were the antidote to the leaven of the Pharisees, upon which “rock” Jesus promised to “build My church,” why “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; and what it means to receive the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth that which has been bound or loosed in heaven.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 2 →

Email, RSS Follow
Papal Infallibility, Sola Ecclesia

Last to Know, Part 1

9 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
“… thou art Peter…” — Matthew 16:18

The scriptural argument that Jesus built His Church upon Peter is itself built upon a single Bible verse without context: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). What is lost in the argument, whether from Patristic writers in antiquity or medieval theologians or modern Roman apologists—and yes, even some Protestants—is that Jesus said this to Peter in the aftermath of the two miracles of the loaves: the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Feeding of the 4,000. The events immediately following those miracles concluded with Jesus posing two different but related questions to the apostles: “Whom do men say that I am?” and “Will ye also go away?” Peter’s answers to those questions revealed that he had finally believed Who Jesus was, and in fact was the last of the apostles to do so. Only then did Jesus utter those famous words, “and upon this rock I will build my church.” By studying and harmonizing the loaves narratives, it becomes clear that the two questions Jesus asked arose concurrently and were answered at once. By understanding those questions, Peter’s answers, and Jesus’ response, we may also understand that “the rock” upon which Jesus would build His church was neither Peter, nor his confession, but something else entirely.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 1 →

Email, RSS Follow
Epistemology, Infallibility, Papal Infallibility

It’s extremely complex

58 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
Roman Catholics are forced to rely on private interpretation in order to avoid the pitfalls of private interpretation.
Roman Catholics are forced to rely on private interpretation in order to avoid the pitfalls of private interpretation.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “revelation,” or the “deposit of faith,” is that “which has been committed” to the Roman Catholic church, “and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance.” As Catholic Answers helpfully defines, the “doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors.” Having been entrusted with “the faith which was once delivered” (Jude 3), the  Roman Catholic church is alleged to be the only authorized custodian and teacher of that deposit (Catholic Encyclopedia, Revelation). Continue reading It’s extremely complex →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Eucharistic adoration

The Great Write-in Write-out Campaign

198 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
There is nothing in history that a little creative Roman editing can't fix.
There is nothing in the historical record that a little creative Roman editing can’t fix.

We concluded our last series on The Sacrifice Challenge with a few citations from Cyril of Jerusalem, so we thought it opportune to use him to demonstrate one of the ways Rome “finds” her doctrines in the Early Church. As we noted last week, Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures were part of a late-fourth century trend during which Rome’s novel Mass Sacrifice was invented. Catholic Answers used a few select quotes to prove Cyril’s belief in transubstantiation, but as we demonstrated, those quotes were truncated in order to isolate them from their context, and Cyril—even in the midst of his other errors—nevertheless maintained his conviction that the elements of the Lord’s Supper were only figuratively Christ’s body and blood, and remained so even after the consecration.
Continue reading The Great Write-in Write-out Campaign →

Email, RSS Follow
Church Fathers, Church History, Marian Dogmas, Papal Infallibility, The Immaculate Conception

“A significant turning point…”

74 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
The conception of Mary occurred 400 years before Rome even dreamed of its immaculacy.
Mary’s conception was understood by the Early Church to be no different than ours, until “a significant turning point” occurred toward the end of the 4th century.

Readers who have been following this blog are familiar with our position that Roman Catholicism as a religion originated in the latter part of the 4th century A.D. The religion of Rome is not of apostolic origin. As we explained in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, distinctively Roman Catholic dogma can be traced to the late 300s A.D., no earlier. In that article, we touched briefly on the late development of the immaculacy of Mary in the imagination of Rome. This week, we explore the magnitude of Rome’s historical revisionism in its attempt to prove the apostolicity of the dogma of her “Immaculate Conception.” Continue reading “A significant turning point…” →

Email, RSS Follow
Eucharistic adoration, Idolatry, Tradition, Transubstantiation

“It’s Complicated”

42 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
" ... it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing." — Canon XX, Council of Nicæa, 325 A.D.
“…it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.” (Canon XX, Council of Nicæa, 325 A.D.)

Catholic Answers is a ministry that exists “to explain & defend the faith,” and seeks to “help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics ‘home,’ and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.” The ministry began in 1979 when its founder, Karl Keating, grew annoyed at a local Protestant church’s efforts to evangelize the Catholics in his parish. The Protestant church had put flyers on the windshields of the parishioners’ parked cars during Mass, and the flyers were allegedly “riddled with misinformation.” Continue reading “It’s Complicated” →

Email, RSS Follow
Eschatology, Papal Infallibility

If the Light that is in Thee be Darkness (the Bowls, part 5)

673 Comments
Email, RSS Follow
"When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly." — Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008
“When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly.” — Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008

This week we continue our series on the Bowls of Judgment in Revelation 16. The first four Bowls thus far are:

The First Bowl: The Stigmata (1224 A.D. – present)
The Second Bowl: The Plague of Scurvy (1453 – late 1700s A.D.)
The Third Bowl: The Dogma of Papal Infallibility (1870 A.D.)
The Fourth Bowl: Scorching by the Sun at Fátima (1917 A.D.)

The First Bowl was poured out “upon the earth” (Revelation 16:2), the Second “upon the sea” (Revelation 16:3), the Third “upon the rivers and fountains of waters” (Revelation 16:4) and the Fourth “upon the sun” (Revelation 16:8).

This Fifth Bowl is poured out directly “upon the seat of the beast” and the people “gnawed their tongues for pain” because of it (Revelation 16:10). We therefore note with no small interest that at the Third Bowl, when the Dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed, the Pope was said to be infallible “when he speaks [with his tongue] ex cathedra [from his seat]”  (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV). The Pope’s seat, from which he claims to speak infallibly, is the target of this Fifth Bowl, and his kingdom is thereby plunged into darkness. Continue reading If the Light that is in Thee be Darkness (the Bowls, part 5) →

Email, RSS Follow