Category Archives: Sola Ecclesia

One Billion Denominations

“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

“Tens of Thousands of Pages,” Part 7

“…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

Last to Know, Part 6

“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

Last to Know, Part 5

“…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

Last to Know, Part 4

“…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

Last to Know, Part 3

” … 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

Last to Know, Part 2

“… 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

Last to Know, Part 1

“… 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

How to resolve an historical paradox

Escher's Drawing Hands
Escher’s Drawing Hands is illustrative of Rome’s self-validating Tradition.

M. C. Escher’s Drawing Hands shows two drawn hands drawing each other, each hand getting its power to draw from the other. True to Escher’s style, a paradox is presented to the eye of the beholder, and the paradox is never resolved—the eye must continually move from one object to the other. Each time the eye settles on an apparently solid 3-dimensional object that can make sense of the rest of the picture, the paradox reappears. The search for the original, “authoritative” hand never ends.

We believe this is a good illustration of Roman Catholicism’s view of Tradition because Tradition is based on what Rome teaches, and what Rome teaches is based on Tradition. We gave an example of this in our recent post, All the Way Back. In that post, Roman priest and Marian devotee, Fr. Thomas Livius, showed the origins of Marian doctrines from the Fathers of the first six centuries. When he arrived at the teachings of Origen, Basil and Cyril—that the sword that pierced Mary’s soul (Luke 2:35) was the sword of doubt and unbelief—rather than accept that the early church understood that Mary was sinful, Livius spends his next three pages correcting Origen, as well as Basil and Cyril who agreed with him.

This raises the obvious question: Continue reading How to resolve an historical paradox

“Truth” received on no authority at all

Cracked Foundation
Cardinal Newman taught that sincerely believing a well-crafted fabrication is as good as believing the truth.

The sincere Roman Catholic will no doubt bristle at our summary of Tradition in our previous post:

The pattern for Rome is this: “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.” This is why I call ‘Tradition’ the historical revisionism that it clearly is.

It is nonetheless a true, and verifiable statement. John Henry Cardinal Newman, one of the most famous converts to Rome from the Church of England, was a prolific writer and, after his conversion, a staunch apologist for Rome. He provides one of the best examples in recent memory of an apologist who was committed to the circularity of Roman epistemology: “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.” When commenting on A Legend of St. Gundleus, Newman not only allows for adding fictional dialogues to the gospel narrative—he insists that it is necessary. Continue reading “Truth” received on no authority at all

All the Way Back

St. Paul icon
St. Paul still holds out the written Word of God to His people.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Word of God is transmitted to the Church by Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium (i.e., popes, councils, etc…). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (81),

Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.

Christians hold to Sola Scriptura (the written Word of God alone) while Roman Catholics hold to Sola Verbum Dei (the Word of God alone), as transmitted by Tradition, etc… Roman Catholic apologist, Scott Hahn, makes this point nicely in his book, Rome Sweet Home (p. 74). The Roman Catholic Church sees “Tradition” as part of the Word of God, and thus, it makes little sense (to Roman Catholics) when Christians say that Rome’s “Tradition” goes against “the Word of God.” Tradition, to them, is the Word of God.

Therefore, to the Roman apologist, there is no tension when Tradition includes doctrines not explicitly included in the Bible. Tradition merely helps us understand what Scripture means. This leads to some interesting arguments, like this one from Roman apologist Robert Sungenis, who says, if Roman Catholic teachings are in the Bible, then I should be able to find them somewhere else. Continue reading All the Way Back