Didache Text Contradicts Christian Belief?

Does the Didache text contradict Christian belief? That seemed to be the question one visitor to CAS had on their mind this past month when we found "didache contradict christian belief" in our analytics report of keywords.

Our immediate thought was, no, the Didache (pronounced die-dah-kay) does not contradict Christian belief as it was written by 1st Century Christians and was widely circulated and used by the 1st Century Church. In fact, it wasn't until the 4th Century that the Didache was formally and forever excluded from the canon of the scripture, not for being false, but for being a church manual. Personally, we would have liked the Didache to have been included in the Bible as it would have saved centuries of fussing over the mode of baptism and whether abortion is permissable.

The Didache is one of our favorite early Christian writings due to its being short and containing instructions for how Christians are to baptise. We suspect the Didache's forementioned instructions on baptism may be one of the key sticking points as the Didache does not support baptism by immersion only. Readers can find copies of the Didache text in several places including Wesley Center Online (our favorite) and the Calvin Christian Electronic Library (CCEL). If you have never read the Didache, take a moment and do so now. We'll wait as you'll be finished in just a few minutes. Try the Wesley Center Online version, it has fewer distracting footnotes and commentary. We'll get a fresh cup of tea meanwhile...

Oh, good, you're back!

One of the more interesting aspects of the Didache is it seems to have been written about the time of the Gospel of Matthew. There are many parallels between the two documents. In chapter 7 of his book "The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature", Edward Massaux includes a table with parallel texts from the Didache and the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark. Massaux points out that one could easily append the Didache to the end of the gospel of Matthew as the Didache seems to start where the gospel of Matthew ends.

So does the Didache contradict Chrsitian belief? No, we don't find the Didache contradicts Christian belief. We do think that the Didache does contradict many individuals' personal Christian beliefs and personal interpretations of scripture, but those are two entirely different things. So what are some of the seeming contradictions?

Baptism

The Didache is the earliest known Christian writing to detail just how Christians are to baptise. The writers of the books of the Bible seem to have assumed that their readers were already familiar with details of baptism and never provided any instructions. So sola scriptura Christians, who have interpreted various passages in the Bible to mean baptism is by immersion only, will experience dissonance where the Didache states:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.
The Didache

Thus, we have never had any disagreement with those who prefer to immerse converts in cold river water. That preference seems both Biblical and faithful to 1st Century practice. But to insist on immersion only sems to contradict both the Bible and early Christian practice. For some reason, humans like absolutes and tend to insert "only" at the drop of a hat.

Personally, we see the greatest contradiction between the Didache and baptism being that many Christian congregations immerse only once, where as the Didache and all the early texts on baptism indicate three immersions were/are used.

Fasting

Many modern Christian congregations are opposed to fasting, often because it seems Catholic. Thus, those individuals would likely have some discomfort reading:

8:1 And let not your fastings be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and the fifth day of the week;
8:2 but do ye keep your fast on the fourth and on the preparation (the sixth) day
The Didache

1st Century Christians fasted twice weekly on Wednesdays and Fridays. Who knew? One wouldn't discover that reading the Bible alone. Might be interesting to discover when and why Catholics seemed to have dropped fasting on Wednesdays. The Didache also seems to shed some light on why many Christians meet on Wednesday evenings. Might the modern tradition be related to the fasting practices of 1st Century Christians? Hmm...

Lord's Supper

Fencing the table seems to have been the norm in the 1st Century. Those modern Christian congregations that practice open communion ("Everyone is welcome!") seem to be in contradiction to the instructions left by our 1st Century church fathers:

9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}
The Didache

The Didache makes clear that the Eucharist was to be received only by baptised Christians. "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." is a quote straight from Matthew 7:6. No contradiction with scripture there.

Also, the use of "eucharist" in verse 9:10 and the phrase "that which is holy" in verse 9:12 seem to indicate that 1st Century Christians considered the bread and wine to be more than merely symbolic. Some Christians may find this aspect of the Didache to contradict their personal beliefs or what they have been taught by other Christians regarding the Lord's Supper. Those individuals might consider re-reading the gospel accounts of the last supper in light of Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1 and ask themselves what happened when the voice of God (Jesus) went forth saying "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) Why do all the gospel accounts of the last supper use the Greek verb "to be" (is, am are)?

Abortion

The Didache also makes clear that from the 1st century the Christian doctrine concerning abortion is that its wrong, with no exceptions. Those Christians that are pro-choice or make exceptions for rape or incest are likely uncomfortable to read:

thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born
The Didache

We find no contradiction with either scripture or Christian belief regarding abortion. Again, there may be some contradiction with personal interpretations or preferences. This is yet another example of why we wish the early church had included the Didache in the canon of scripture. Christian doctrine on abortion would have been firmly set and the early 20th century exceptions on contraception that led to today's abortion controversy would likely have never gained traction.

In closing. We are fond of the Didache as we are of all of God's word. Its easy to to see why the Didache was widely copied and circulated among NT churches and was considered for inclusion in the modern canon of scripture. Does the Didache contradict Christian belief? We don't see it, but your personal interpretations of scripture and the doctrines taught to you by others may prove otherwise. Seek the truth.

Related Posts:
The Geek of Immersion Baptism
Protestants Joining Catholics in Confession Comeback
The Holiest of Nights


Source: The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles

Why Christmas Is December 25th

While reviewing our analytics, we discovered that a number of folks have visited seeking the true answer to "Why is Christmas on December 25th?" We also have had one visitor leave the popular, but erroneous myth of Christmas being of pagan origin as a comment.

As we stated in our reply to the misinformed commentor, It's not because "the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25." While that is a happy coincidence, its not the true reason for the season. The true reason for why December 25th commemorates the birth of Jesus is because its about nine months after Easter. Nine months is the gestation period for a human, including God incarnate."

But why take our word for it? Why not read and dwell on what William J. Tighe, Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, researched and wrote for Touchstone, a Journal of Mere Christianity. In his article, Calculating Christmas, professor Tighe explains the true reason for how Christmas came to be observed by Western Christians on December 25th and by Eastern Christians on January 6th. Professor Tighe aptly explains "why" far better than we can.

By the way, for those fond of the pagan origins of Christmas myth, while the myth seems to explain why Western Christians celebrate on December 25th, the myth fails to satifactorily explain why Eastern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on Januray 6th. Thus the myth is true only for one date, but not both dates. If something is true for one date, but not all dates, then one does not have the truth. Its a simple, but effective test.

Related Posts:
Baptists Don't Celebrate Christmas
12 Days of Christmas Song Myth
title


Source: Calculating Christmas

Rebaptism: Is A Need for Rebaptism Biblical?

Michael Spencer, the iMonk, is hosting a very good discussion on rebaptism and questioning the need for rebaptism. Michael plans a multi-post discussion on rebaptism and the many apologies for and against the practice of rebaptism among many Baptist and evangelical congregations. Michaels says the practice of rebaptism is "an issue that has deeply affected and weakened my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention,...". With the continuing decline in Southern Baptist adherents and baptisms, Michael's discussion is timely and much needed.

What does the Bible say about rebaptism? Well, rebaptism is not demonstrated in any of the New Testament. There are many examples of baptisms, but no examples of rebaptism. Paul seems to implicitly instruct against the need for rebaptism in one of his letters:

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6

Paul in his letter to the Ephesians seems very clear that there is one and only one baptism. This section of his letter reinforces the oneness of God and the one faith established by Christ. Combined with the fact that there isn't a single example of rebaptism in the Bible, I am unable to understand how sola scriptura Christians can wander into the error of rebaptism and the confusion and doubts it creates in their congregations. But, then again, so many early Christians wandered into the error of rebaptism that the second Ecumenical Council in 381 specfically addressed rebaptism in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381

In the interest of full disclosure, our congregation recites the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 at most services and also holds the early Christian doctrine of one baptism, as do we.

I encourage CAS readers to click over to the Internet Monk blog and join in the conversation taking place regarding the need for rebaptism. As always, be charitable!

Related Posts:
Baptism by Immersion Only
Baptism by Immersion - Clothed or Unclothed?
The Holiest of Nights

Source: Rebaptism: What Is It?

Scripture Memorization in Early Church History

A CAS visitor earlier this year was researching "Scripture Memorization in Early Church History." Modern Christians take for granted the current Christian tradition of memorizing verses of the Bible. Often, this memorization takes the form of citing the book name, chapter, and verse; followed by the verse or verses, and then repeating the Book name, chapter, and verse. For example:

John 6:53 -- "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." -- John 6:53

The modern method of scripture memorization would have been largely unknown to early Church Christians. Why? Chiefly due to some scriptures not yet existing, a shortage of easily accessible scriptures, illiteracy, and the inconvenient fact the the modern system of dividing the Bible into chapters and versus wasn't developed until about the Reformation.

In the immediate period after Christ's ascension, there was no New Testament to memorize. The books were yet to be written. So, rather than memorizing Romans, early Christians, who still attended synagogues, memorized the Old Testament. Memorization was achieved en masse by the Old Testament being read aloud to the congregation. Often, the reader of the scroll was not actually reading the scroll, but reciting the passages by memory themselves.

The "books" of the New Testament were actually scrolls of very expensive parchment or papyrus. The scripture was written in scriptio continua style. That is, to save space and economize, the scripture was written without chapter and paragraph breaks. In fact, there were not even spaces between words and verses as in this paragraph itself. Can you imagine trying to read John 6:53 aloud, while looking at:

thenjesussaiduntothemverilyverilyisayuntoyouexceptyeeattheflesh
ofthesonofmananddrinkhisbloodyehavenolifeinyou

While New Testament scrolls existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there were few, if any, personal copies. Christians of the day did not arrive at "church" carrying their own copy of scripture. The modern Christian tradition of believers bringing their own personal Bible to church was not an early church practice. Instead the congregation assembled a library of scripture, some in the modern canon and many not found in the current canon. At their gathering, most, if not all, the scriptures were read aloud to the assembly. If an early Christian congregation had acquired a copy of Paul's epistle to the Romans, it likely would have been read in its entirety every Sunday, week after week. That's how New Testament scripture was initially memorized. The Christian tradition of reading scripture aloud in in repeating cycles is still observed in all 22 Catholic Churches and in all Eastern Orthodox Churches.

During the misnamed Dark Ages, Irish monastics would gather daily and recite all 150 Psalms from beginning to end. By praying all 150 psalms daily, new monastics would have heard all 150 psalms repeatedly and been able to memorize all 150 prayers of David as well. Lay people often desired to join in the monastic prayers, but could not devote the time required to pray and memorize all 150 psalms. Eventually, a simplified devotional was developed using a few shorter, more easily memorized verses from the New Testament which were repeated to form a chain of 150 psalm-like prayers. Many Christians know this simplified devotional of 150 prayers as the Rosary.

(By the way, in the early centuries of the Church, presbyters were required to have memorized all 150 psalms. How many modern presbyters have memorized all 150 psalms? How many modern elders or deacons have memorized all 150 psalms? Compared to some early Christian practices, many of us modern age Christians measure as a bunch of slackers.)

It was several centuries after the Great Schism, that "the present chapter divisions in our Bibles were invented in 1205 by Stephen Langton, a professor in Paris (he later became the Archbishop of Canterbury), who put these into a Vulgate edition of the Bible." The current versification of the Bible was developed by Robert Stephanus in 1551, just after the start of the Reformation. The post-Reformation Geneva Bible was the first Bible to be published using the modern system of chapter and verse divisions.

So, it is after the Reformation that the modern Christian tradition of memorizing scripture in the form of citing the book name, chapter, and verse; followed by the verse or verses developed. Over recent centuries, many systems of organizing scripture verses to aid Christians in memorization have developed. We still have our original box of the Topical Memory System developed by the Navigators on our shelf of Bibles.

With the advent of computers and the development of e-Sword software with its scripture memorization tools, scripture memorization enters a new age. Interestingly, that after 2000 years, while the division of scripture into chapters and verses has been standardized, punctuation has not. Perhaps some future Christian will significantly aid in the standardization of punctuation in the Bible.

God bless...

Related Posts:
Scripture Memorization for Catholics: Prayers

Source: Chapters and Verses -- Late Comers

Apologetics - Papal Infallibility

Introduction: During one of my regular blog searches for all things Catholic, I discovered an interesting post by blogger Saur♥Kraut. In my usual manner, on those things I thought in error, I left a polite charitable comment with my counter-points. Saur♥Kraut responded with a reply to her blog post and was kind enough to leave word on one of my earlier blog posts that she had replied and would like me to read and respond. As my reply prints out at 6 pages and most blog software has limitations on comment length and its somewhat rude to monopolize another blog's comments, I have posted my second response to Saur♥Kraut here.

I recommend that you read Saur♥Kraut's original post Reformation in the Catholic Church first, followed by all the comments, and then return here for my second response which follows.

>”Actually, there is. Didn’t you read my points?”

Yes, I did. You posted four “examples” of what you believe to be erroneous proclamations and judgments by past Popes and thus proof against papal infallibility. However, none of those examples have ever been recognized by the Catholic Church as infallible papal proclamations or judgments. Papal infallibility has only been used twice in history.

>”You are in error here – I believe you mean John 16:13.”

Yes, thank you. It was late and I’ve had a tiring schedule lately. Looks like I was one verse off in my citation, but you found the reference nonetheless.

>” Timothy, please note that even you wrote “…and the church”.”

Correct, because the charisma of infallibility has been bestowed by Christ on both the Church and on the successor Peter, the Pope. While the charisma of papal infallibility has only been used twice, the infallibility of the Church has been used many times over.

>” This scripture verse applies to the disciples (plural), not the Pope. You believe the Popes all descend from Peter, but we see that Jesus is addressing a group of disciples and not Peter alone.”

While you don’t say so directly, you seem to imply that only the apostles were infallible and that the charisma vanished after the last apostle died. Is that your intent?

As a Latin Rite Catholic, our bishops (the Popes) inherit their authority from the apostle Peter. The keys of authority which Jesus gave to Peter as mentioned in Matthew 16 were inheritable per Isaiah 22. It seems clear from scripture that Christ did not intend for His Church to wander aimlessly without any Shepard throughout time. I find nothing in scripture to indicate that any and all charismas granted Peter would not be inherited by Peter’s successor.

You mentioned all the disciples being present and being promised the Holy Spirit. We agree that took place at Pentecost. As the other apostles founded churches also, it would be interesting to discover if Pope Shenouda III, the current Pope of Alexandria and the successor of the apostle Mark, also has the charisma of infallibility.

>”I’m not sure what version you’re using,”

For online work, I usually use either the NIV or KJV at Biblegateway.com

>”What is the Spirit of truth? I think you would have to agree that it’s speaking of the Holy Spirit”

Absolutely. Infallibility has everything to do with truth. If one is speaking the truth, one has made an infallible statement. Truth cannot contradict truth or ever be error. So, if the Pope says something true then it is infallible (without error) just by the nature of truth and infallibility, just as a true statement by a two year-old would also be infallible (without error) just by the nature of truth and infallibility. While infallibility is much more common than many people realize, there still have been only two instances of papal infallibility in history.

>”Incidentally, not even the Catholic Church claims that the Pope is without sin. He is capable of mistakes just as we are (as you seem to admit).”

Oh, absolutely! Catholics have never claimed that the Pope is ever impeccable (without sin). Many non-Catholics confuse infallibility with impeccability. Its lovely to have a discussion with someone who knows the difference.

Christ instituted a Church for sinners, filled the Church with sinners, and put sinners in charge. How cool is that?

>”Which is why in the early church, we saw many church fathers – not one who was supervising them all. It was a system of checks and balances, with elders.”

While there was and is a system of checks and balances, with elders, there was one bishop supervising all the churches under that bishop from the earliest days of the NT church. Perhaps you are not familiar with the church fathers Clement, Ignatius, Basil, Gregory, and Cyril. All were bishops. (We can get into the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which was recently reaffirmed by the Orthodox bishops in Ravenna, but that’s a longer discussion for another day.)

>”In fact, if you were going to pick a papal authority figure, Paul would have been a likelier choice”

Yep, Paul would have made a both a great Bishop and Pope. Too bad he wasn’t called by God for that ministry. Paul's good friend Peter received the honor of being the first.

>”In what way? And please note that even if that is the case, it also shows that the Popes are prone to extreme error at times.”

In the way that none of them are or have ever been considered infallible Papal statements. Yes, they may be wonderful examples of Popes prone to error, if true. So what? Catholics have never claimed that Popes weren't prone to error. But, your examples have nothing to do with proving or disproving the doctrine of papal infallibility. While the worst, immoral men were serving as Pope, God preserved the church from doctrinal error.

>” Hon, read what I wrote above: You’re buying the classic Catholic dogma. Do some objective research. Only the SCRIPTURE is infallible.”

Only the SCRIPTURE is infallible seems to me a tradition of man. No where in the Bible does it ever claim to be infallible. I’d be curious as to what scriptural proof you have to back up your statement.

I’ll accept that the Bible is inerrant, but I don’t think the Bible, an inanimate object, is even capable of being infallible. Again infallibility is a protection against error. As the Bible is lacking any ability to act in error, infallibility seems an impossibility for the Bible.

Yes, I’m sticking with the Catholic dogma as I find it to be firmly grounded in scripture with no valid evidence to the contrary.

>” Timothy, don’t you see how silly this is? The Catholic Church should either make a stand or not make a stand. There should be no hair-splitting about what an affirmation entails. They should either believe something and stick to it (heresy or no) or they should simply say “we don’t know”. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying here(?)”

Yes, we may have gotten into a misunderstanding at this point. No, I don’t find any of this silly. Jesus was departing His Church knowing that Satan would be looking for opportunities to scatter His sheep. Jesus provided for His Church be ensuring an unending line of shepherds upon whom He granted the Holy Spirit, including the charisma of infallibility. I find nothing silly there.

There is no hair-splitting regarding what an affirmation entails. There is a very carefully defined system which is employed to ensure that error is not taught within the Church. As non-Catholics without a similar system it is often difficult for you to grasp how that system works and acts as checks and balances. We’re discussing papal infallibility, a small piece of that system. There have been two and only two infallible statements made by Popes. You have not mentioned either. I’m at a lack for understanding how you can argue against papal infallibility without knowing what statements made by Popes are recognized by Catholics as being infallible Papal statements. Non-Catholics don’t get to thumb through historical documents, choose any statement they desire, declare it an infallible statement by a Pope, declare it in error, and thus declare papal infallibility an error. That is known as a straw man argument, a classical fallacy.

>”You mistake an organization for a group of believers.”

A group of believers is an organization. We see in the NT how Paul sent Titus to Crete as bishop. Titus was then to appoint leaders of the individual faith communities. The early church had an ecclesiastical structure which is evident both in the NT and in the immediate Ante-Nicene period.

(I lived on Crete for several years and have worshipped at the ruins where Titus and Paul landed. All the churches on Crete are strangely Orthodox or Catholic, both with well developed ecclesiologies.)

I find it hard to believe that Jesus, who as God had foreknowledge of the future of His Church, made no provision for leadership and organization knowing there would be close to 2 billion Christians 2,000 years later. Nor did Jesus, knowing the future organization of the Catholic Church with over 1 billion members, speak against such organization. Consent by silence?

>”Again, you are so snowed by Catholic doctrine that you aren’t even aware of your historical facts. There were myriad groups. Some would be deemed heretical by both Catholics and Protestants today, others were very much of the same beliefs as modern Protestants are.”

Actually, no, I am not snowed by Catholic doctrine and am very much aware of historical facts. Yes, there were myriad groups, but there was only one unified, Catholic Church. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and disciple of John the Apostle, wrote about AD 107 to the Smyrnaeans:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

But my favorite quote from an early Church father on false Christian churches would be this one By Cyril of Jerusalem::

"And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all."
Cyril of Jerusalem

I have read "Trail of Blood" and there are a number of Christians, mostly Landmark Baptists, that believe in the remnant theory made popular by the book. However, a number of Baptist historiana have proven the Trail of Blood false. The best modern work is Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick.

>”Yes, Timothy, but only to a small extent. And, may I add, the Catholic Church very much has their own version of the Bible. You are rarely (if ever) encouraged to study scriptures OUTSIDE of that version, nor are you encouraged to look into the reasons why the Protestants have rejected portions of the Catholic Bible.”

Catholics have their own versions of the Bible because the Catholic Church so loves the Bible that it wishes to preserve Bible translations from error. Catholic Bibles are only Catholic because the Church has approved the translation. Recall that shortly after Guttenberg invented the printing press, publishers across Europe went crazy translating and printing Bibles with egregious errors in them.

Yes, Catholics are discouraged from reading erroneous translations of the Bible. For example, I doubt you would encourage Catholics to read the New World Translation by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). Since the Catholic Church through its councils of bishops selected the books of the New Testament and created the canon of scripture, they have the authority to decide which are valid translations and which are not.

I have about a dozen hardback Bibles and several dozen more in digital format for use with e-Sword. My newest addition is a hardback Holman Christian Standard Bible. Back in my early twenties when I had my born again experience, I purchased and read the NIV. Late after midnight, I read the NIV cover to cover and found everything the Catholic Church teaches in the NIV. It’s all there. 100%.

>” Catholics hear more scripture in their Sunday service than most Protestants do. Don't believe that? Bring your Bible to a Sunday Mass and try and keep up!

But what Protestant churches have YOU been in? In the churches I’ve been in, a Bible is usually mandatory and we should ALL check scriptures as the speaker/pastor/priest uses them.”

I have attended Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Episcopal, evangelical, Greek Orthodox, and Byzantine Catholic services. You also did not catch on to what I was saying here. You’re focusing on the homily/sermon because that’s the bulk of your service, but only a small part of ours. The Mass is non-stop scripture from its opening words from the Gospel of Matthew to its closing word from Revelation. More on this in a moment.

>”Paul tells us that we should!”

No, Paul does NOT tell us that we should search the scriptures while the pastor is speaking. That is a tradition of man. A nice tradition, but a tradition of man nonetheless. If you re-read about the Bereans, Paul preached in the synagogue and then afterwards the scriptures were searched. (Likely because there was only one set of scripture per synagogue. The congregation did not bring their own personal scrolls to the service in order to follow along.) Was the NT searched? No, the OT was searched. I can prove most Catholic doctrines using the OT alone like the Bereans, can you prove yours using the OT alone?

>”But I HAVE been to a couple Catholic services. To the best of my knowledge, the priest didn’t crack a Bible open once, and I saw no one in the (very large) church that did.”

First, there was a Bible as there is an OT reading, a psalm, a NT epistle or another OT reading, and a Gospel reading at every Sunday Catholic service. The second reading is ommitted at the daily weekday service. A person who attends Mass daily will hear nearly the entire Bible over a three-year cycle, which then repeats. In charity, your attendence was a while ago, a lot happens at the Mass, and human memory does interesting things as it ages.

Second, you may not have realized that much of the dialogue that you heard from both the priest and from the congregation was directly from scripture. Catholics have memorized much of the Bible and incorporated it into the Mass. For example, the Mass begins with everyone reciting “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” You may recognize that from the Great Commission in Matthew. Midway you’ll hear the congregation recite the Sanctus “Holy, Holy, Holy…” which is from Isaiah but also reoccurs in Revelation. Now, the priest could pause the Mass by saying “Let us pray the prayer that Jesus taught us. Everyone turn to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6, verses 9 through 13. Has everyone found it?” Personally, I find the Mass goes smoother when everyone has memorized those portions of the Bible and can recite the scripture instantly.

Scott Hahn has an audio file where he describes his taking a Bible to a Catholic Mass and trying to follow along. It took him attending Mass numerous times before he was able to locate all the passages Catholics have memorized. From the Catholic viewpoint, it’s interesting to listen to how this Protestant preacher followed the Mass with his Bible daily over a 2-3 week period. You find his Real Audio file describing the events here:

Scott Hahn - The Lamb's Supper

>” I would recommend you begin to study the history of the Catholic Church from sources outside the Catholic Church. Hey – if the CC is 100% correct, they have nothing to worry about, right?”

Absolutely. I have listened to and read materials from James White, Richard Bennett, Ken Silva, Jack Chick and others who are rabidly anti-Catholic. I have read Calvin’s Institutes, the Methodist Primer, Book of Mormon, the Koran, and several histories of the Baptist denominations and more. On a daily basis I frequent Anglican, Baptist, and evangelical Christian blogs. I’ve been doing this for years. No worries. The more I read, listen, and study the more I am convinced that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be. The pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

>”Oh Timothy, Timothy! Surely you are blushing about this lame attempt to defend such error.”

Nope. I’m a big fan of Galileo and have been to his tomb in Florence. I’ve been an amateur astronomer for years and took astronomy in college. Generally, when Galileo gets brought up folks think they know what the Galileo controversy was about, but actually know the myths and misconceptions. The controversy with Galileo had more to do with his disobediance versus his science. I believe that non-Catholic refer to that as church discipline. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim the Church should have accepted and taught Galileo’s ideas as truth without any proof and without any way of proving the science until the late 1800’s. Also, keep in mind that the Catholic Church developed the scientific method and the rules of evidence. All truth, even math and science, is from God and leads us closer to God.

>The Lazy Iguana said... ” The only reason you can read this, the only reason there are computers and the internet - is because people had the courage to stand up to the church and refute things the church was teaching that was false.”

Ok, I’ll bite. Prove it. Prove to me that unless people stood up to the church that there would not be computers and the Internet. Sounds like hyperbole to me.

>The Lazy Iguana said... ”…we would all still be living in the mud and filth of the stone age.”

Ok, this is definitely hyperbole, as we were well into the Iron Age when Christ and the Apostles walked the earth.


God bless....

+Timothy

Source: Reformation in the Catholic Church

Apologetics - Perpetual Virginity of Mary

One of the reasons, there aren't daily updates to the CAS blog is that I devote considerable time responding to apologetic errors on other blogs. This morning, I discovered a well meaning Christian, who obviously spends much time dwelling in and on the Word, posting against the Christian doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Yes, I said Christian. The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a universal Christian doctrine dating back to the earliest days of the Church. It is not uniquely Roman Catholic.

Our earnest brother (or sister) in Christ says "...we gather that Jesus had at least four brothers and some sisters from Mary, his mother! Mary was not a perpetual virgin." Our brother bases his arguement on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

”Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?”
Mark 6:3

Of these passages, our brother says; "The context alone provides plain evidence that Christ had actual blood brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church, however, denies the context." Does the Catholic Church deny that context? Absolutely! Not just the Catholic Church at Rome, but all the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Does any other Christian Church deny the context? Why yes, thank you for asking. All of the Orthodox Churches also deny the context and hold the Christian doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Did any of the Reformers deny the context and hold the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Yes, all of them did.

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.(Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned." {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

Ulrich Zwingli wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

John Wesley wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)

Why do most of the world's Christians still continue to hold and teach the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Because denial of the doctrine pulls the rug out from beneath the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Islamic apologists, atheists, and cultists see the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity as the gateway to disproving the divinity of Christ. They argue, if Mary had seven children and these six are human, then the seventh is human as well. Therefore, Christianity is a sham as it is built on a lie. God is one and there is no Trinity. Allah Ahkbar!

The denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary was a heresy made popular by Helvidius during the early Christian Church. My favorite reply to Helvidius was made by the one man who surely knew the true context of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Jerome. Yes, the very same Jerome who translated the Bible from Greek and knew the meaning of adelphos. Jerome's Against Helvidius is the classic apologetic for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Its a shame that more Christians have not read it. Our brother doesn't even mention Jerome in his apologetic for the heresy.

However, Jerome was not alone and apologies were written by: Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); and Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444).

So how do we as modern day Christians follow Jerome, the early Church fathers, and the Reformers in responding to those mis-informed brothers and sisters (adelphos) that have rediscovered the error of Helvidius and now embrace a dangerous heresy? Bible believing Christians, knowing the inerrency of scripture, should respond with charity and kindness by focusing on these main points:

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Our brother in Christ stated "In the Greek text, the word “brother” is adelphos, which literally means “from the womb,” indicating these are Christ’s brothers from His mother." But how is adelphos actually used in scripture?

In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for:
(1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
(2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
(3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
(5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
(6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
(7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
(8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and
(10) believers (Mt 23:8).
(From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

Third, a strong proof text against the Helvidian Heresy is John 19:26-27.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
John 19:26-27

Jesus, the perfect Jewish son and fulfiller of the Law of Moses, would not have violated Jewish law by giving his mother over to the care of John if Mary had any other children. Our brother may have overlooked John 19:26-27 or not connected the passage with Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 since they are all in different books.

Many modern Christians in their zeal to disprove Catholicism are embracing dangerous heresies that our early Church fathers fought hard to extinguish. Christians must be careful to learn the history of Christianity and what doctrines have always been held by Christians. There are numerous collections of non-canonical writings by the earliest Christians available to us. I often use the Christian Classics Ethereal library collection. If you have not discovered this treasure of ante-Nicene Bible commentaries and "Sunday school" lessons, I encourage you to visit and read.

Source: Was Mary A Perpetual Virgin?

Protestants Following Trent On Easter

Did Spring start on Friday, March 21st? Are you or your Church celebrating Easter this year on Sunday, March 23rd? If so, then you and your church are following the Council of Trent. Although reknown for speaking against the Reformation, the Council of Trent also set the date for the start of Spring and determined the method for setting the date for Easter Sunday.

The original method for determining the date of Easter Sunday was established at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The council decreed that Easter shall be observed on a Sunday, and on the Sunday following the first full moon after the Vernal (Spring) Equinox. This method was followed by all Christians, both Western and Eastern.

Regarding Trent, Andrew Tevington, assistant pastor at the United Methodist Church of the Servant in Oklahoma City, writes "For purposes of determining Easter's date, the Council of Trent decreed spring would always begin March 21."

So, if you rejoiced on the 21st of March that Spring had at long last finally arrived or if the morning of March 23rd found you worshipping on Ressurection Sunday, you did so because you follow the Council of Trent. You may not agree with all the the Council of Trent had to say, but on some of Trent, you do consent.

Oh, one other thing. That calendar on your desk or hanging on your wall. It's Gregorian. Named after Pope Gregory XIII who, after the Reformation, in 1582 ordered the advancement of the calendar by 10 days and introduced a new corrective device to curb further errors. America adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752.

Source: Solar, lunar calendars alter holy days' timing

Saint Patrick a Baptist! Not!

One bit of fiction that makes it way across the Internet this time of year is "St. Patrick A Baptist!" by Dr. L. K. Landis. Dr. Landis, for whatever reason, wants to convert Saint Patrick from Catholic to Baptist post-mortem. Several Baptist church sites and bloggers have discovered Dr. Landis' fictional account of Saint Patrick and have posted it to their sites without any concern for historical accuracy. How any true Baptist could believe that Saint Patrick was a Baptist is almost beyond explanation. I suspect the believers are Landmark Baptists, who still believe the long discredited Trail of Blood is an accurate account of Baptist history.

So, on behalf of all the Catholics and Baptists who know the truth regarding Saint Patrick, I offer this meager apologetic against Saint Patrick being a Baptist.

"Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers - ... in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant"

All of Patrick's writings consist of just two surviving documents. Not only do they not record baptising infants, they also do not record baptising only professed believers. They do record baptised individuals being confirmed and annointed with chrism, both clearly Baptist distinctives, are they not?

"Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only - This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today."

First, nothing in either of the two surviving works by Patrick mentions baptism by immersion. Second, Catholics have also baptised by immersion since the days of the apostles. Read the Didache or Cyril of Jerusalem. Catholics are filling the immersion pool at the Catholic Church I attend for the adult believer baptisms at the Easter Vigil Mass. Perhaps they too are Baptists?

"Number Three: In Church Government, St. Patrick Was A Baptist - Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops,"

These would be Baptist bishops?

"Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc. - Patrick never attended one council..."

Only one church council was held during Patrick's lifetime and it was at Chalcedon. Perhaps British Rail was on strike and prevented Patrick's attendance?

"Number Five: In Doctrine - In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system."

In all two of his writings this is largely correct, except for Patrick's mention of Catholic distinctives like confirmation, chrism, monks and nuns, purgatory, etc.

"Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist - From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance."

No, we don't, as this subject is not discussed in either surviving document. We do know from his Confession that Patrick had an altar and that communion tables are not mentioned.

"Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation - Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood."

That's also false as neither the Eucharist nor transubstantiation are discussed in either of Patrick's two surviving documents. Also the elements of the Eucharist being only "pictures" is an unbiblical belief per Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1:3. That said, I will heartedly agree with any and all Baptists who wish to claim that their communion is a picture or symbol.

"Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities - St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches."

The Baptist sect didn't exist until around 1600. There were no Baptist churches in existence during Patrick's lifetime. No credible Baptist historian makes that claim. I recommend Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick. McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by "Trail of Blood" as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Baptist history discovered them to be historically untenable.

"It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced.

I'm sure Dr. Landis was firmly convicted, but the author's evidence is not sufficient and does not bear up to scrutiny. Baptists have many things in their short history to be proud of, but Patrick of Ireland is not one of them.

I would encourage everyone to read Patricks surviving writings for themselves:

Confession

The Letter to Corotocus

Source: St. Patrick A Baptist!

Ordination Prayer for Women Deacons Differs

Finalmente! At long last, I have had the "Ah ha!" moment and can now explain and prove the difference in male and female deacons from the early Church. The answer lies within the two different prayers found within the existing Orthodox faith. God bless the poster on the troparion to Saint Phoebe the Deaconess on the Peter Akinola blog and for commenter 7 for pointing to anastasis.org.uk .

ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A WOMAN DEACON

Holy and All-powerful God, through the birth in flesh of your Only-begotten Son and our God from a Virgin you sanctified woman, and granted not only to men but also to women the grace and visitation of the Holy Spirit. Now, Master, look upon this servant of yours also, call her to the work of your service and send down upon her the rich gift of your Holy Spirit. Guard her in your Orthodox faith in a blameless way of life in accordance with what is well pleasing to you, as she fulfils her ministry at every moment.

ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A DEACON

Lord, our God, by your foreknowledge you send down the gift of your Holy Spirit upon those who are appointed by your inscrutable power to become ministers and to assist in the service of your most pure Mysteries.

Did you spot the difference? Only the male deacon is ordained to minister and to assist in the Eucharist (pure Mysteries). Female deacons are ordained to the work of service, which does NOT include the Eucharist. This difference in ordination prayers aligns the two groups of deacons perfectly with the historic position of deacons within the Church. The work of service for female deacons consisted largely of assisting female converts during baptism. (Early Christians were naked during baptism, just like modern day Copts are naked during baptism.)

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests have devoted considerable space to providing the ordination rite for Deaconesses and to their comparison to the ordination of male deacons. On first glance, the presence of an ordination rite for women deacons and a comparison chart showing "identical" rites seems to be prima facia evidence for the sacramental ordination of women deacons. Except, the writer of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests text omitted mentioning that the ordination prayers are distinctly and sacramentally different between male and female deacons. This omission may be either accidental or deliberate. We'll have to take the more charitable stance and assume that this was accidental. If accidental, then the comparison table will eventually be corrected to mention the difference in ordination prayeer.

So, it doesn't matter one iota that an ordination rite exists or how similar the two ordinations rites are or even how many icons of Phoebe depict her wearing a deacons stole, there was and still is a major difference in the ordination rites of male and female deacons.

Source: ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A WOMAN DEACON

Flowcharting the Apostles

Every now and then, one runs across a very clever idea amongst the millions of blogs. Bob Stanley, who seems to have a programming background, has cleverly applied flowcharting software to evangelization. Bob has created a series of flowcharts that aid in teaching the many truths of our Lord's Church.

One such flowchart is Bob's flowchart showing what happened to all of the Apostles and where their remains are located today. Earlier in the year, I had visited a pizza lunch at our local Baptist Studuent Union. One of the young men was very versed in soterology, but was lacking in church history. When I was telling him about Andrew planting the Church at Byzantium and how the Church at Antioch is still present today as the Melkite Catholic Church, he was enthralled. If I had Bob's flowchart of the Apostles, my explanation might have been clearer and I would have been able to leave something with the young man to guide him in his studies.

I am a big fan of mind mapping and Bob has inspired me to create some evangelization mind maps. I'll probably recreate Bob's flowchart as a mind map and include where the Apostles evangelized and which Churchs the Apostles each planted. Did you know Thomas made his way east and into southern India? That's why we need tools like Bob's evangelization flowcharts.

Source: Evangelization Flowcharts

Protestants Joining Catholics in Confession Comeback

Who knew that the ancient Christian practice of confession was making a comeback in a big way? While running a routine bookmarked Google Blogsearch, I discovered this short post, which led to this larger post by a Lutheran pastor, which led to this WSJ article. That's how blogs should work. One should be led from a statement of fact, to a source, and then to other sources.

What originally, caught my attention was the fact that earlier this past summer, 2.5 million Lutherans decided to revive the ancient Christian practice of confession. It seems that, for the last 100 years, no one in this particular denomination of Lutherans had been practicing confession to a priest. In the cited Lutheran example, the pastor wears vestments, stands near the altar, and penitents kneel and confess their sins.

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
James 5:15

Now, while the Lutheran revival of confession may be mind blowing to me and some of you good folks, what really toasted my grey matter was the Wall Street Journal article that the good Father Eckardt cited at the bottom of his post. The revival of confession wasn't limited to the 2.5 million Lutherans. Oh, no. God seems to have initiated a confessional renaissance of the entire Christian church. Even evangelicals are practicing confession! Who knew?

Some evangelicals don't need any prompting. Joshua Wilshusen, 29, a respiratory care student from Lomita, Calif., started meeting two other Christian men for a weekly group confession two years ago. They gather at a park or coffee shop to ask questions such as "Have you coveted this week?" "Have you been sexually pure?" "Have you just lied to me?" Confessing helps him resist temptations. "There've been times when a sin has hurt me all week, when I've lusted after a woman or lost my temper at work, and then I confess it and the peace is restored."

Confession is one of the oldest Christian practices and historical documentation of the practice dates back to about 70AD where it is mentioned in the Didache:

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure"
Didache 4:14, 14:1

Around the same time, we find the ancient Christian practice of confessing confirmed in the Acts of the Apostles:

Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.
Acts 19:18

The early fathers of the Christian church were not silent regarding confession. Origen in his homilies on Leviticus states:

"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"
Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 2:4

I am particularly fond of this quote by Basil the Great from around 288AD:

It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles"
Basil the Great, Rules Briefly Treated

About a decade later John Chrysostom would write:

"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven"
John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:5

Remember...

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness"
1 John 1:9

However, if I am to confess my sins to another, I want it to be to another who has this authority from Jesus:

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
John 20:21-23

Source: WSJ - Confession Makes a Comeback

Comparing Islam and Christianity

A few evenings back, while surfing through some bookmarked blog searches, I chanced upon a post by an Islamic apologist that compared the similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity in tabular form. I have long wanted to do something like this, but since it now exists, I am content to reference the information on the other site.

I complimented the Islamic apologist on their effort as there are often differing, even opposing, doctrines held by various Christian denominations. All in all I thought our Islamic friend came closest. I did point out few errors on the Christian side, particularly some of those regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory (final purification) which were cited.

I also pointed out that early Christians regarded Islam as a Christian heresy, which would explain both the similarities and the diferences. I also provided a link to John of Damascus' treatise On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites in case they were unfamiliar with it.

And there is also the up until now strong and people-deceiving superstition of the Ishmaelites, being the forerunner of Antichrist. And it is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, as from Σαρρας κενοι (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: “Sarah has sent me away empty.” So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Khabar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting (?) people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence.

One aspect of Islam I had never heard is that OT prophets are considered infallible in Islam. In light of that, I asked "how does Islam fulfill the infallible prophecy of Malachi in Malachi 1:11?" This is a difficult enough prophecy for those Christian groups which do not use incense in their worship.

For those of you clicking through, please be charitable. Don't forget to remember the truths that Islam got right. All truth is of God, even truth found in sources we may personally dislike.

Source: CHRISTIANITY & ISLAM - Similarities And Diffrences

Experiences with the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

In preparation for our upcoming visit with one or more Jehovah Witnesses this next week, I spent some time this morning doing research. I discovered that the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the only JW authorized version of the Bible is available online. While lacking a keyword search feature, there is a nice interface that allows one to select the book, chapter, and verse to aid browsing. I set about verifying several favorite passages that I find useful in evangelical and apologetic moments.

Isaiah 55:11 - The NWT says essentially the same thing as most versions of Isaiah.

Malachi 1:11 - Again, the NWT is essentially the same, except "smoke" is used instead of "incense". This is a good finding as this prophecy of Jehovah through Malachi should prove troublesome when our JWs claim that their church is the true church. I'd like to hear their explanation regarding the daily offerings of smoke and a pure offering in all nations. To date, few Christian denominations match the prophecy of Malachi.

Matthew 16:18-19 - "Rock-mass" instead of just "rock". Jesus' quote from Isaiah 22:22 is unchanged. Ok. How do the JWs interpret Jesus re-establishing the Davidic office of Eliakim and giving Peter the keys of Jesus' authority?

Matthew 24:23-28 - Oddly, this reads fairly normally which is a surprise as JWs teach or taught about an invisible second coming of Jesus in 1914. I'll be curious to hear their explanation in light of this prophecy of a very visible second coming of Jesus.

Matthew 26:26 - "TAKE, eat. This means my body." Ah, quite of bit of difference between "is" and "means", especially when the underlying Greek verb is a form of "to be" (is). In fact, the verb here is used throughout the Bread of Life discourse above and always translated "is". Looking forward to discussing this passage.

Matthew 26:28 - "...for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’..." Same error. "Means" instead of "is".

Luke 1:28 - Well... "Good day, highly favored one, Jehovah is with you." sounds a bit Aussie. At least it wasn't deleted. Te use of "highly favored one" should allow for discussion of the underlying Greek word and Jerome's "gratia plena" in the Vulgate.

Luke 1:42-43 - Luke 1:42 is unchanged and I was glad to find "the mother of my Lord" in Luke 1:43. JWs reject the ancient doctrine of Theotokos (mother of God) due to rejecting the divinity of Jesus. If we can prove the divinity of Jesus, Luke 1:43 should help with proving the doctrine of the Theotokos.

Luke 1:48 - "...all generations will pronounce me happy;" "Happy" instead of "blessed". Even the most rabid anti-Catholics and their Bibles translate the underlying Greek as "blessed". I'll be curious to hear why the JWs and the NWT went with "happy" considering Jerome used beatum (blessed) at this point.

John 6:35ff - The Bread of Life discourse is a fairly true translation. I suppose that since JWs reject the divinity of Jesus, this passage was not seen as against JW doctrine. I discovered minutes later that this will be an important section when discussing the Lord's Supper as the underlying Greek is also found in this section as well.

Acts 20:7 - "... On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal." Normally, this verse describes the Apostles meeting weekly on Sunday for the "breaking of the bread" or Lord's Supper, as opposed to the JWs annual memorial. The underlying Greek clearly includes a verb meaning "to break" and the noun for "bread". I understand that the JWs have a Greek-English Interlinear, so I would be interested to see what they have for the underlying Greek here. Unfortunately, their interlinear is not online.

1 Timothy 3:15 - "... a pillar and support of the truth." The Greek article tho is translated as "a" and not "the". Again why?

James 5:16 - "Therefore openly confess YOUR sins to one another..." No where in my reading the JW literature did I come across a doctrine on confession. Would like to hear an explanation of this verse and how this instruction is kept.

Revelation 12:1 - Curious as to who JWs think this woman is. As a follow-up, I also like to hear abut the crown she is wearing.

I actually looked up several more passages, but you get the idea by now. The NWT has numerous significant errors in translation which change meanings of several passages entirely. I'll have some questions for our missionaries in regards to who translated what, by what authority, and with what credentials or academic background. You might also do a little cross checking yourself using the NWT against your favorite translation. Please share your findings an comments.

Source: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Mother Theresa's Dark Night of the Soul

The last few days I've been catching up on the Christian apologetics blogosphere. One of the most interesting thimgs being commented on is Time magazine's recent article on Mother Theresa and her "crisis of faith". The wave of discussions rippling through the blog continuum ranges from highs of thoughtful discussion to lows of anti-Catholic and atheistic hate.

Among the best discussions were those found at Titus One Nine, an Anglican-Episcopal blog. At T19 the discussion focused on the the wonderful gift that God had bestowed on Mother Theresa. The comments were full of love and intelligence. Little wonder that Kendall Harmon's T19 blog is a daily read for me.

Among the worst discussions were those found at Slice of Laodicea and Godless Kiwi. The Godless Kiwi's comments are understandable and could likely be excused under the concept of invincible ignorance, that is, "ignorance" in the apologetic sense. There is no such defense or excuse for the uncharitable behavior and comments found among the Slice commenters. As Christians they know better.

In contrast to the Anglicans, the Reformed Christians of Slice started with name calling (Caffowick), misrepresentations ("she worshiped the pope"), and general anti-Catholic bigotry ("the woman lived by a pernicious and Satanic doctrine"). To be fair and charitable, there were notable exceptions, including Rick ("I think her uncertainty - and in the face of that still trusting God, still going about her love for others - is part of what made her real.")

One thing I noted among the Slice audience was that no one seemed to recognize in the article John of the Cross' famous work Dark Night of the Soul. This was in complete contrast to the T19 audience were the similarities to John of the Cross were immediately recognized and discussed. Perhaps Anglicans are better read in regards to the early Church.

For those not familiar with John of the Cross' famous Christian classic, the first chapter begins with this memorable paragraph:

INTO this dark night souls begin to enter when God draws them forth from the state of beginners—which is the state of those that meditate on the spiritual road—and begins to set them in the state of progressives—which is that of those who are already contemplatives—to the end that, after passing through it, they may arrive at the state of the perfect, which is that of the Divine union of the soul with God. Wherefore, to the end that we may the better understand and explain what night is this through which the soul passes, and for what cause God sets it therein, it will be well here to touch first of all upon certain characteristics of beginners (which, although we treat them with all possible brevity, will not fail to be of service likewise to the beginners themselves), in order that, realizing the weakness of the state wherein they are, they may take courage, and may desire that God will bring them into this night, wherein the soul is strengthened and confirmed in the virtues, and made ready for the inestimable delights of the love of God.

I encourage those who have not read John of the Cross, to read through Dark Night of the Soul or Ascent of Mount Carmel and then revisit the Time article. You'll be surprised at what you see and read with the perpective of Church history.

Source: Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith

Apology for the Early Church Fathers

Every now and then one stumbles across a pearl among the blogosphere. A rare moment of serendipity. Such was a moment last last night. While performing a search for "Didache" I found "Apologia for the Fathers" by the blogger Seraphim.

Apologia for the Fathers makes the case that the Fathers of the early Christian Church were not early apostates, as is a popular depiction among many scripture alone Christians, but were instead recipients and faithful transmittters of Apostolic teaching and practices. In at least one case, one of the Church fathers was in actuality a disciple of Christ, the Lord God Himself.

Those seeking a concise and well written defense of the Fathers, or are open minded enough to consider the possibility that the Fathers were not apostates, should click through and read what Seraphim has written for us. Here's a taste:

... Who, then, will presume to discredit the witness for which they paid so dearly in blood, and to contend contemptuously against their teaching? When Ignatius tells us that the Eucharist is in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord, and that this is the true apostolic teaching, can you testify against him with any authority? When Clement describes a monarchic episcopal ecclesiology in his Epistle to the Romans, how can you propound your doctrine against his without calling him either a liar or a fool, by extension maligning his teachers, who are the very Apostles who wrote the Scripture which you twist to be in harmony with your own preconceptions? ...

So, while Ignatius of Antioch's words on the Eucharist and Christ's Real Presence in the consecrated bread and wine is a tough doctrine for many Christians, we have the testimony of a man who was a disciple of Jesus, during our Lord's walk upon the Earth, and who was martyred for his faith. We would do well to head Seraphim's words:

... For the truly faithful, for those who truly believe in His promises, there must be a reckoning, must be a comparison of doctrine, not measuring the Fathers against one’s own standard, but measuring one’s own self against the Spirit-fortified testimony of the Church. ...

Source: Apologia for the Fathers

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

Who wrote this? Pope Benedict? Hardly. While long thought to be a Catholic doctrine due to its repetition throught out the ages by 4th Latern Council, the Papal Bull Unum Sanctum and most recently by Pope Benedict XVI, the origins of this doctrine are much, much earlier and are surprisingly Christian.

Scripturally, this ancient Christian doctrine is based on John 15 and the metaphor of the vine and the branches. Recall that from the earliest days the Church was beset with imitators trying to cash in on the Christian movement in an attempt to make a fast shekel. The first centuries of the Church would see the introduction of dozens of attractive heresies which lured many Christians far from the faith of the Apostles. The early Church wrote often on the unity of the Church and the need to remain in the one true Church handed on from the Apostles.

Today, few Christians outside the ancient Churches have bothered to read the early Church fathers. For if they had, they would have found among them these doctrinal statements:

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons"

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians [A.D. 110]

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace".

Irenaeus, Against Heresies [A.D. 189]

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved"; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death".

Origen, Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church"

Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 61 [A.D. 253]

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church"

Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 61 [A.D. 253]

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism".

Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise on Rebaptism [A.D. 256]

So, if your church does not hold and teach this ancient Christian doctrine, why not?


Source: Salvation Outside the Church

Womenpriests Plan Womens' Ordination

Looks like the annual ordination of women as "priests" is on. Several sources state that this Sunday, May 27th, an ordination ceremony will take place in Toronto, Canada at a secret undisclosed church of unknown denomination. Anyone vaguely familiar with the Catholic Church at Rome knows that these women are not bishops and priests of the Roman Church as women are not valid matter for ordination.

I had an online discussion with a non-Catholic feminist professor of women studies once. She, like the womenpriests, made the old arguements regarding the church being sexist, archaic, unfair, but never once did she ever consider the sacramental nature of ordination. She seemed suprised and dumb founded when I explained the concept to her.

Every sacrament has valid physical matter associated with it.

Water is the only valid matter for conducting baptisms. No Christian church uses milk, beer, wine, or orange juice. Just because you don't have a pool of water doesn't mean that a vat of beer can be used for baptismal immersions. Beer is not valid matter. Scripture and the early Church fathers are quite clear on water being the only valid matter for baptism.

Unleavened bread and wine are the only valid matter for communion. While some Christian churches stray and use grape juice, grape juice is no more valid matter than using Moon Pies with Nehi Grape Soda chasers. Neither are milk and cookies valid matter for communion.

A man and a women are the only valid matter for marriage. Not two men nor two women. I'm all for two men, or two women, living together as brother and brother, or sister and sister, and caring for each other. God calls us all to love one another as he has loved us. But, same sex pairings are not valid matter for marriage.

Olive oil is the only valid matter for annointings. Not light motor oil or baby oil. Neither are shortening, lard or any other "oily" substance valid matter for annointing.

Thus we come to the sacrament of ordination. The scripture and early Church clearly indicate that only baptised males are valid matter. While this requirement eliminates women from ordination, it also eliminates two-thirds of all men, or more. Two billion men are automatically excluded due to lack of baptism. The pool of valid matter is thus limited to about 17% of the world's population. Add in a requirement to be Catholic, in the case of the Church at Rome, and the pool shrinks down to about 8% or less. Factor in discerning "the call", psychlogical and academic suitability, and the pool continues to shrink well below the 5% level.

Now I'm sure that if, like the Womenpriets, one is a member of the 83% to 97% of the world population that isn't valid or suitable for ordination, and that's something I aspired to, I too would feel discriminated against, that the rules were unfair, and more. However, no law or sense of injustice can convert invalid matter into valid matter for ordination.

So, our fine and devout women may lay hands on each other as much as they like, but their ordinations are no more valid than a baptism with milk or a communion with grape juice.

May God bless these women and grant them the grace to see the errors in their "ordinations."

eSword - The Confession of Patrick of Ireland

This morning I was listening to the weekly podcast of The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi. Marcus was interviewing Patty Bonds, sister of well-known reformed apologist Dr. James R. White. Patty mentioned that around Saint Patrick's Day one year she decided to read up on Patrick and found Patrick's Confession online. After reading The Confession of Patrick, Patty decided to read the fathers of the early church before 250 A.D.. Based on her study of the early Church and scripture, Patty decided to move from the Baptist faith to the Catholic faith.

Well, when I heard this testimony, I stopped and looked up The Confession of Patrick. I wanted to see this powerful document that would have this effect on Christians like Patty Bonds.

The Confession of Patrick was easy to find and there were dozens of translations to be found. Mericfully, Patrick believed in brevity. The Confession is extremely short in comparison to Justin Martyr's First Apology.

Patrick's opening paragraphs set the tone for his Confession:

I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a priest, of the settlement [vicus] of Bannavem Taburniae; he had a small villa nearby where I was taken captive. I was at that time about sixteen years of age. I did not, indeed, know the true God; and I was taken into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of people, according to our deserts, for quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation. And the Lord brought down on us the fury of his being and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where I, in my smallness, am now to be found among foreigners.

2 And there the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that, even so late, I might remember my transgressions and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my insignificance and pitied my youth and ignorance. And he watched over me before I knew him, and before I learned sense or even distinguished between good and evil, and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son.

The Confession of Patrick

When I got home this evening, I quickly copied and edited The Confession of Patrick in eSword as a topic file. The zipped esword topic file is available for download in my eSnips eSword account.

Source: The Journey Home podcast (RSS/XML)

Communion - The Miracle of Lanciano

One day this past week, I dropped by the nearby convenience store, and found two friends, one Jewish and the other Episcopal, discussing the Eucharist. They were discussing how if transubstantiation does occur, then why is there no physical evidence of cell structure, blood type or similar.

I mentioned the Miracle of Lanciano and the results of tests showing the Eucharist had turned into smooth heart tissue with a universal AB blood type. Neither had heard of Lanciano. Most likely, neither have you.

Let's set the stage. It's around the year 750 and we are in central Italy. The Koran has been written down and Islamic armies have already swept across Northern Africa and entered Spain. Benedict is still alive in Germany. The Second Council of Nicea is yet to occur. In Mexico, Teotihuacan is starting its collapse.

In a little non-descript church, Legontian, a monk, is saying the liturgy of the Eucharist and has doubts concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In reponse to Legontian's doubt's, God allows the Eucharist to physically change form from bread into human flesh and from wine into human blood. Much to surprise of Logontian and the villagers. Legontian is strengthened in his faith and goes on to sainthood. The resulting flesh and blood is kept and venerated to the present age.

In the 1970's and 1980's, several series of scientific tests were conducted on the flesh and blood of Lanciano, with surprising results:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Lest one thinks that Lanciano is a one-time, freak event, there have been at least 142 similarly documented Eucharistic miracles.

At a later visit that day, my Jewish friend asked why if the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, why is Communion not cannibalism, which is clearly forbidden in Leviticus? We'll discuss that issue in a future post later this month.

Source: The Real Presence Association