Scotland More Roman Catholic Than Protestant

From Scotland on Sunday:

"Scotland has become more Roman Catholic than Protestant, with its congregations now outnumbering the Kirk for the first time since records began.

Figures compiled by the independent group Christian Research reveal that in 2005 the number of Catholics who went to Mass surpassed those who attended Church of Scotland services.

A total of 215,000 Catholics went to church, compared with only 208,400 attending the Church of Scotland."

If you recall, sometime this past year the English newspapers reported that Catholics had achieved parity with Anglicans in church attendance in England.

Source: Catholic church moves into Pole position

The Shrinking Church of England

The Rev. Lee Proudlove, chief muser at Anselmic’s Place, has written a ery good post entitled The Shrinking Church of England. Rev. Proudlove has delved into past COE statistics, done some analysis in Excel, and presents some astounding figures and trends. The chart at the left depicts the downward trend in Sunday attendance in the Church of England, from 1968 to 2006.

Rev. Proudlove discusses three trends in the Church of England,:

1) Declining Sunday attendance, at least since 1970.

2) The ratio of Anglicans to the rest of the population.

3) The graying of the Church of England, the decline about to get worse.

While reading the Rev. Proudlove's timely post, I am reminded of a passage in the Gospel of Matthew...

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

So, if the gates of hell should prevail and the Church of England becomes no more, what does that say about the Church of England and King Henry's disobediance and schism from the ancient Church?

Source: The Shrinking Church of England

The Protestant Crisis

While researching blogs on the recent Catholic - Islam Demographic shift, I discovered a very good post at The Politics of the Cross titled The Protestant Crisis. Well worth the read as it is original material with much forethought.

Source: The Protestant Crisis

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

1611 KJV Bible Available Online

Many readers may recall my earlier post on the 1611 KJV Bible. It turns out that many CAS visitors are interested in the 1611 KJV BIble. Also most King James Only (KJO) Christians have never seen the 1611 KJV Bible and have no idea what was included in it besides the Old and New Testaments. I have found a complete copy of the 1611 KJV Bible scanned and online. This post will describe the additional 1611 KJV materials that have long since been removed or replaced. each section title is a click-able link to the scanned 1611 KJV Bible at the Schoenberg Center for Electronic Text and Image (SCETI).

Epistle Dedicatorie. This is the dedication which begins "To the Most High and Mightie Prince, James by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the Faith." On the second page, at the bottom of the first paragraph, I noted the epistle reads "...by caring for the Church as a most tender and loving nursing Father." Interesting, The KJV translators refer to James as Father with a capital "F". So much for "call no man Father" (Matthew 23:9). Seemingly, the KJV translators interpret Matthew 23:9 with a different meaning than many Protestants in this day and age.

The Translators to the Reader. This eleven page section of the KJV Bible is among the most interesting as it gives the background and thoughts by the translators on how the KJV Bible came to be. On page 7, the second paragraph starts with "Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God." By meanest, the translators are saying the poorest. So the KJV translators considered even the worst translation of the Bible in English to be the word of God. Anyone with a smattering of Bible history knows that by 1611 there were dozens of English translations of the Bible. The KJV translators recognized all those translations as the word of God. So much for most of the King James only (KJO) arguments of many modern Christian sects.

The Liturgical Calendar. The Calendar consists of twelve pages with one page dedicated to each month. Each page provides the time the suns rise and falls and a listing of the corresponding readings for morning and evening scriptures and psalms for those praying the Minor Hours. Each calendar page also lists the Principal Feasts and Principal Holy Days, Festivals, and Lesser Festivals. One of the most interesting entires is on the December calendar which clearly list the 8th day as the Conception of Mary. Mary is also listed on August 15th. The translators of the King James Bible obviously had great honor for Mary and went to obvious efforts to ensure that the Mother of our Lord received the honor due her on her feastivals.

An Almanac for 39 Years. The inclusion of the almanac is interesting. It seems 39 years was chosen to provide liturgical dates until 1650, a mid-point for the century. The almanac provides the dates for Septuagesima, the first day of Lent (Ash Wednesday), Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday (Pentecost), and the first Sunday of Advent. The almanac also provides the Golden number and Epact for each year.

The Names and Order of all the Books. The list of all the books includes a list of "The Books called Apochrypha".

The Genealogies of Holy Scripture.

The Alphabetical Table of Canaan. This several page table cross-references names found in the Old Testament to their location in the 1611 KJV Bible.

Map of the Holy Land. The map is a beautiful two page print illustration that is located in the middle of the Alphabetical Table of Canaan.

Apochrypha. While many modern KJV Bibles omit the Septuagint writings known as Apochrypha, the original 1611 KJV Bible retained these writings. The Apochrypha continued to appear in the KJV Bible until around 1825, when both the British and American Bible Societies refused to pay publishers for KJV Bibles unless the Apochrypha was removed. The Apochrypha is making a come back and several modern KJV publishers include these books. One final note, the Apochrypha is not considered canon by just Roman Catholics, but also by the Greek, Slavonic/Russian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, and Armenian Churchs. Kevin P. Edgecomb of Biblicalia blog has published a Chart of Old Testament Biblical Canons.

Margin Notes. The translators included margin notes all through the 1611 KJV Bible. Sometimes the notes are about alternative meanings. Other margin notes are cross references to related scripture. For example, the title of this paragraph links to a magnified view of a margin note from Wisdom 2:1, an Apochryphal text. Note that the translators cited Wisdom 2:1 as being related to Matthew 22:23 and 1Cor 15:32. All three passages speak to the doctrine of the resurrection. Interesting. Finally, the hundreds of margin notes are in opposition to a modern KJO myth that the 1611 KJV Bible did not include margin notes. The photographic evidence is overwhelmingly against the myth.

I hope the above descriptions of materials that were once part of the 1611 King James version of the Bible, will inspire you to spend some time getting acquainted with this historic book. Perhaps some of you will recover the Minor Hours, observe Lent, or celebrate the festival of a favorite saint.

Source: 1611 KJV Bible

1611 King James Bible

Being an online apologist, I have been slowly acquiring various Bibles and denominational books for my reference. One of the Bibles I have been most interested in is a reproduction of the 1611 King James Bible. The main reasons I'm interested in this version of the KJV are that allegedly this Bible contains margin notes from the KJV translators and that it is a "complete" Bible. In the centuries following 1611, more and more of the original material in the KJV was ommitted by publishers, including whole books of the Old Testament.

Prior to committing to an online purchase. I thought I'd see if a copy was available locally. So, the wife and I visited our local Lifeway. My wife promptly busied her self among Lifeway's selection of "graven images". (They're starting to look more and more like a Catholic gift shop.) I headed off to the shelves and shelves of Bibles. After a fruitless search, an employee confirmed by computer that there were two copies of the 1611 KJV somewhere in the store. Many minutes later I found a copy. Apparently there is not a historical shelf with Geneva, Vulgate and other such translations. Baptists seem to love their Bibles, but not their Bible history.

Thumbing through the 1611 reprint I was both surprised and disappointed:

1) The margins do contain "notes", but these consist merely of a single Bible passage and the quantity of cross references is sparse. Many pages have only one passage in the margins.

2) The margins of the deuterocanonicals (1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, etc.) do contain corresponding passages in the New Testament. However, checking the corresponding NT pages shows that the 1611 translators did not make the margin notes two-way. You can follow the margin passages from Tobit to Matthew, but once in Matthew, you won't find a single passage note back to Tobit.

3) The introductory materials include a table of the Liturgy of the Hours giving all the feast days of the Saints and the Marian observances. December 8 clearly reads Conception of Mary. (Pulse starts to race. Blood pressure rises.)

4) Browsing the included Liturgy of the Hours, it appears that deuterocanonicals like Esdras were read and prayed by the early English Protestants. (Feeling light headed. May faint.)

Being mentally confused by the long search and the discovery of the "Catholic" contents of the original 1611 KJV, I shelved the 1611 KJV Bible until I could mull things over for a few days. The little woman was sitting over in the graven images section. Seems she was disappointed not to find Saint Patrick among the many knick-knacks.

Source: 1611 King James Bible

eSword - The Great Heresies

Hilaire Belloc's classic treatise, The Great Heresies, is now available for eSword. This classic apologetic work provides a good condensed source of information on the major Christian heresies. While the chapters on the Carthusians and Arians are interesting from a more historical viewpoint, the chapters on Islam and modernism are very applicable to the current day.

Why concern ourselves with heresies? Hilaire responds:

The study of successive Christian heresies, their characters and fates, has a special interest for all of us who belong to the European or Christian culture, and that is a reason that ought to be self-evident_our culture was made by a religion. Changes in, or deflections from, that religion necessarily affect our civilization as a whole.

Hilaire's describes Islam:

Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine.

About modernism (written in 1936):

The enemy which the Faith now has to meet, and which may be called "The Modern Attack," is a wholesale assault upon the fundamentals of the Faith_upon the very existence of the Faith. And the enemy now advancing against us is increasingly conscious of the fact that there can be no question of neutrality. The forces now opposed to the Faith design to destroy.

The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc