Low Sunday

"As the Father has sent Me, I also send you..."

Jesus, speaking to His Apostles, tells them that as the Father sent Him, He also sends them. And the very next line is, "Receive the Holy Ghost... whose sins YOU forgive, they ARE forgiven them..." THIS is why His Apostles, our first bishops, have the authority to forgive sins AND since Jesus sent them to forgive sins - they too must pass on this authority to their successors - our bishops are those successors!  THIS is why our priests, IF they have THIS authority from a valid bishop in succession from the Apostles, can forgive sins at the Sacrament of Reconciliation (aka, the Sacrament of Penance). Those sins THEY do not forgive (are retained) are NOT forgiven ("they are retained"). One who is not of this valid succession has NO AUTHORITY to forgive sins.

THIS is His Divine Mercy, which is what this Sunday is also referred to in the modern lectionary.

The Sunday After Easter is traditionally Low Sunday (Extraordinary Rite).

Some highlights from the Extraordinary Rite:

Introit: 1 Peter 2:2 - "As newborn babies, alleluia, desire the rational mile without guile, alleluia!"

Epistle: 1 John 5:4-10 - "For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.  And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son."

The Greater Alleluia: Alleluia, alleluia. On the day of My resurrection, saith the Lord, I will go before you into Galilee. Alleluia. (John 20:26) After eight days, the doors being shut, Jesus stood in the midst of His disciples, and said: Peace be with you. Alleluia.

Gospel: (which is the same for the Ordinary Rite too on this day) John 20:19-31 - "Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name."

Offertory: Matthew 28:2, 5-6 - "An angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid."

An Apologist View of the Assumption

The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was last week, August 15th. In the Eastern Rites this is celebrated as the Dormition of the Theotokos.

St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: "St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." [Qtd. by Fr. Saunders in The Assumption of Mary at: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm]

The Feast is established in the Eastern Church by the Byzantine Emperor Mauritius (582-602)on August 15th and remains celebrated on this date in both Eastern and Western (Latin) traditions.

I selected this picture because it shows our Blessed Lady as an older woman. So many of the other pieces of art we have show the Blessed Virgin as a young lady, even at the time of her assumption into Heaven.

Is The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Contrary to Scripture?

While it is true, Scripture makes no mention of the Assumption, it is not something contrary to Scripture either. Enoch walked with God and was taken by God (Gen. 5:24). Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind as he and Elisha were talking and separated by a chariot of fire (1 Kings 2:11; 1 Macc. 2:58). Elijah's presence in Heaven is made evident as well by his appearance at the Transfiguration - and also at this event was Moses, indicating at least a third person was bodily in Heaven (Matt. 17:3). That being said, Scripture itself does imply she's already there! In Rev. 12:1 we hear of this "woman clothed in the sun" and "crown on her head with twelve stars" - again implying she is already there AND has been crowned, as we refer to her, as Queen of Heaven. We're also sure this passage is talking about the Blessed Virgin Mary because it also speaks of her as giving birth to a Son, whom the Devil sought to destroy, but that Son ascended into Heaven where He sits upon His throne.

Even the staunchest of "Bible-believering Christians" must accept that bodily assumption into Heaven is not something contrary to Scripture.

A Contradiction?

Some may point to John 3:13 and Jesus' own words where He says "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." Does Jesus then contradict what is clearly recorded in Gen. 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11? By no means! Enoch and Elijah were "taken" to Heaven, they did not ascend by their own accord - and neither did the Blessed Virgin! The only Man who has ascended into Heaven by His own will/accord - is the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

Another Extraordinary Event During the Ordinal (Counting) Season

And yes, during this time of the liturgical year, in modern times it is referred to as "Ordinary Time," but this is yet another example of the extra-ordinary being celebrated. It is my ongoing mission and plea that we stop referring to this period in the liturgical calendar as "ordinary" and go back to what it was called previously - and that is "Ordinal Time." Yes, both "ordinal" and "ordinary" are from the same root and CAN both mean a period of counting - the more popular use of "ordinary" takes on a lesser meaning of something more general, or humdrum, or run-of-the-mill (see Thesaurus on "ordinary" for more).

Does The Church Have the Authority

Does the Church have the authority to declare such a feast day and dogmatically define such a teaching? Clearly, the answer here is YES! In Matthew 16:18-19 the authority to bind or loose on Earth and in Heaven of whatsoever he chooses is given to our first pope, St. Peter - and in Matthew 18:18 that same authority is given to the Apostles, our first bishops, as a group. So, while St. Peter and/or his successors, can declare such a teaching as dogma (and this did happen in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined this very teaching as dogma in Munificentissimus Deus. I would add, the ONLY part of that document which is absolutely infallible is the definition itself, and that is:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Bottom line here is, before getting too far into a debate on the Assumption itself, it is best to establish the authority of the Catholic Church - which is truly the more/most fundamental difference between Catholics and those who protest against Catholicism.

Do You Like What You See Here?

If so, please click on one of the like/share buttons below and help spread the word! Also be sure to click on the "Follow" link in the right sidebar of this blog to follow this blog and receive updates.

Is Catholicism Christian?

Jumping back into apologetics mode... I came across this site:

http://gotherefor.com/offer.php?intid=29657&changestore=true

Below I will answer to what Mr. Gilbert has presented:

Is the Catholic Church a Christian church?

• Mark Gilbert
 •
• 17 August 2017

When we talk about God we often need to talk about him in parts. Because God is so big and our brains are so small, we need to be able to talk about him in manageable chunks. That is why we sometimes talk about the doctrine of the Trinity, or of Christ, of the church, of creation, and so on. However, because God is one and presents himself to us as a person, Jesus Christ, he is not reducible to those different parts; all these parts impact on and affect each other. You can’t change your doctrine about Jesus without it affecting your doctrine of the Trinity, for example. That is why when we learn and teach about God we study in a systematic way—so we can understand God best through an integrated and coherent system of truths, not isolated ideas.

The irony here is Mr. Gilbert is arguing FOR the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity - which is not explicitly defined in Scripture Alone (via sola scriptura) as any good "Evangelical" holds to. The fact of the matter is that it was officially defined through councils of the Catholic Church which were answering to, most notably, the Arian heresy which was rampant in the Early Catholic Church. Some very noteworthy saints of the Catholic Church of that day and age also addressed this matter of Arius and Arianism (e.g. Sts. Augustine and Athanasius, to name a couple), and again these sources are extra scriptura (beyond Scripture). One must keep in mind, Arians based their arguments in Scripture too - as do modern day Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). Scripture Alone (sola scriptura) does NOT answer the Arians or explicitly define the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.

Sometimes, as Evangelicals approaching Roman Catholicism, we look at various parts of Catholicism without considering how they relate to the whole Catholic system. For example, some might say Roman Catholics believe in the Trinity and the ancient creeds but that they have got the doctrine of Mary, Christ, salvation, the Bible and the church wrong at various key points. This atomization of Catholic teaching can lead us into saying things like, “The Roman Catholic Church is Trinitarian and creedal, and therefore more Christian than the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons”. One of the consequences of this error is to be less likely to be intentional in our evangelism of them. However, you cannot have a different teaching about Jesus and Mary and the church and salvation and the Bible without it profoundly affecting your teaching about the Trinity and your understanding of what the creeds mean.1

I would agree with Mr. Gilbert here!  One cannot "atomize" (his terminology) the Catholic Church and/or the teachings OF the Catholic Church - but the ultimate argument needs to be one regarding authority. Did Jesus pass on ultimate authority to men to lead and guide His Church until He returns again in glory?  To this point we whole-heartedly and emphatically answer YES!  In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus Himself gives ultimate and infallible authority to one man, Simon Bar-Jonah, whom He renames "Cephas" (or "Rock"). Non-Catholics have a real hard time accepting "infallibility" here - but just examine what Jesus said!  "Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth is also bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose on Earth is also loosed in Heaven." Now, unless you are willing to accept error can be bound or loosed in Heaven - THAT is clearly infallible authority and again, in this context, it is being granted to ONE man, Peter, our first pope. Similarly, in Matthew 18:18 the authority to bind and loose is also given to the college of Apostles, our first bishops. It is for this reason we accept that when the Church is assembled in an ecumenical council AND she defines a dogmatic teaching - then there too she speaks infallibly. Again, you HAVE to accept that the Church indeed HAS this authority - OR - you would HAVE to accept that error can be bound or loosed in Heaven.  

Gregg Allison and Leonardo De Chirico have done some very helpful work in critiquing the Roman Catholic system from a biblical perspective.2 In short, they suggest that the Roman Catholic system is best understood by the interaction of two key relationships. Firstly, there is the relationship of what they understand as the realms of Nature and of Grace. We might call them the physical world and the spiritual world. The second key relationship is the relationship between Christ and the Catholic Church. Catholics understand the Catholic Church to be the physical and spiritual continuation of Christ. The spiritual world is separated from the physical world and requires a mediator: Christ and the Catholic Church. You could represent it a bit like this:In this system the spiritual world (the realm of Grace) needs the physical world (the realm of Nature) so that Grace can be expressed in Nature. Also, the physical world needs the spiritual world in order to be perfected so that Nature can be perfected by Grace. 

Mr. Gilbert stumbles upon the truth here. Catholicism does not teach that nature exists wholly outside of grace - in fact in Catholic teaching Catholics must strive to remain in the "State of Grace" - which can be lost due to committing a "sin which is unto death" (1 John 5:16-17) which is more commonly called "mortal sin." The way to reconcile back into the State of Grace is through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), which again is an authority given by Jesus Christ Himself to our first bishops (see John 20:21-23 - and make note - not only does He give men authority to forgive sins, He tells them that as He sends them out they too are to send others out - this authority is clearly meant to be passed on through the generations). The bottom line here is, Grace exists WITH us in Nature. 

The graphic is a bit off too - Christ < > Church for the Church is US!  The Church is the Bride of Christ.

An example of this relationship can be clearly seen in the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion, where the physical elements—the bread and the wine (Nature)—are transformed by the spiritual realm (Grace). Subsequently, when a Roman Catholic (in the realm of Nature) receives the sacrament of Holy Communion (which is transformed by the priest to communicate Grace), he or she can have their Nature perfected by Grace and God’s Grace expressed in their Nature. If this system sounds quite philosophical, that’s because it relies more on Saint Augustine and his 5th century Neo-Platonism and Thomas Aquinas and his 13th century Aristotelianism than it does on the Bible.

Well again, Mr. Gilbert is wrong here. The fact that we believe the Eucharist IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is based in Scripture!  Jesus Himself declares, after He blesses the bread and wine, "This IS My body..." and "This IS My blood..." so who are we to argue against what Jesus Himself authoritatively declares?  

Oh, and let's take a moment to point out - St. Thomas Aquinas was not Aristotelianist - in fact philosophers grant unto Aquinas his OWN method of philosophy called Thomism! Why? St. Thomas Aquinas blended the Socratic method with Platonism (spiritual realism) and Aristotelianism (physical realism) because the ultimate truth is not one or the other - but both. 

The problem with this system is the way sin is minimized: “though marred by sin, tainted nature still possesses a capacity to receive, transmit and cooperate with grace”.3 Nature and Grace are the key elements, and sin is secondary. This results in a religion of progress from a tainted but still intrinsically good state to a better one. In contrast, the Bible presents creation (made good but thoroughly distorted by sin in every aspect) as requiring a supernatural act of God’s grace alone to re-create or regenerate it. This is most clearly seen in the way Jesus redeems fallen human nature by dying to sin and rising to new life. The biblical account of the relationship between creation and new creation is one of radical discontinuity: from death to life, from destruction to recreation (Gen 6:5; Ezek 11:19, 18:31; John 1:12-13, 3:3; 2 Cor 5:17; 1 Pet 1:3, 23; 2 Pet 3:7-10; Rev 21:1).

The reality is that while our "nature" is a fallen nature, it is not "thoroughly distorted" or else we could never come to Christ.  Yes, we are redeemed through the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ but if our nature were "thoroughly distorted" we could never answer His calling to us to come and follow Him. Mr. Gilbert's hyperbole here distorts the truth.

Also, the Roman Catholic religious system sees the Catholic Church as the continuation of Jesus in the world.

 And again, Gilbert falsely represents the Catholic Church and her teachings here. Yes, Christ continues His Work through His Church, but the Church (again) is not Christ - the Church is US.

One of the ways you can see this is again in their teaching on Holy Communion, where they argue that “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained”.

When Jesus declares "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood," Mr. Gilbert finds himself arguing with Jesus. To say the Eucharist is anything less than the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is to make Jesus a liar. (The above quote Gilbert takes from the CCC, but the CCC is actually quoting the Council of Trent here, DS 1651).

This teaching also impacts other doctrines where the Catholic Church takes on the characteristics of Jesus, like:

• salvation is through the Catholic Church

• the pope is the representative of Christ and infallible

• the Church has the authority to determine and interpret the Bible

• the Catholic Church is the continuation of Jesus, and is by definition the only true Church

• Because Grace is superior to Nature, there is a hierarchy within Jesus’ human and divine natures; therefore, as the continuation of Jesus, the Church has a hierarchy between clergy and laity

• Mary as mother of the Church plays a mediatorial role in salvation alongside Jesus by distributing Grace to Nature

• The Catholic Church becomes both the object of faith and also the one whose faithfulness saves those who believe in it.

Responding to Gilbert's bulleted points:

• Yes, the Church is the means by which Jesus left us for salvation.
• The Pope IS the representative of Christ as it was Jesus Christ Himself, the Good Shepherd, who said to Peter (our first pope) to "feed My sheep" and "tend My lambs" - leaving Peter in the role of shepherd. We've already demonstrated the teaching on infallibility, so I won't repeat that here.
• Yes, the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible. 
• Again, the Church is not Christ. Yes, the Church does continue the teachings of Christ - and IS the bridge between the Old and New Covenant. Many, if not most, Protestants forget or may not have ever thought about the fact that Jesus was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew. The true Christian Church is the one which continues where Judaism left off. The Old Covenant is completed in Jesus Christ and the New Covenant continues in His New Testament Church.
• There is no truth to Gilbert's statement of a hierarchy between the Two Natures of Christ, at least not in Catholic teaching.
• With regard to Mary - Mr. Gilbert needs to get over the authority issue first. We can't really get into a discussion of Mary at this point as it would be a distraction from the more fundamental issue.
• Again with the misrepresentation of the Church. It is not faith in the Church which saves - it is faith in Jesus Christ, our Savior, which saves. Now, can one truly claim to have faith in Jesus Christ if they stand in rejection of the Church which Jesus Christ built? Remember, Jesus promised to build His Church - it is wholly illogical to think He waited over 1500 years to do this!

There are a number of reasons why Evangelical churches have strongly and consistently resisted this idea that the church, however it is conceived of, is the continuation of Jesus in this world.

And we have already shown, a number of times here, that the Church is NOT the continuation of Jesus Christ Himself. The Church IS the continuation of the TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ. This equivocation of Christ to the Church is a clear error on the part of Mr. Gilbert.

The Apostle Paul, when faced with Christians in Galatia turning from his teachings to those of the super-apostles, said not once but twice, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8-9). When viewed as a system, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church denies the seriousness of sin and the need for a new creation, distorts the humanity and divinity of Jesus in conflating Jesus with the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, assumes the work of the Holy Spirit on itself and elevates Mary as an idol. They present a different gospel to the one the Apostle Paul fought so hard to preserve in Galatia, and therefore should not be regarded as having accepted the true gospel, nor be considered as a Christian Church. 

And yet another false representation of the Catholic Faith! Catholicism does NOT minimize or deny the seriousness of sin! Perhaps the second most important Sacrament is the Sacrament of Reconciliation - or "Confession" - where we confess our sin(s) to remain in the State of Grace. Nowhere does Catholicism deny the need to be reborn or for a "new creation." It is not Catholicism which distorts the humanity and divinity of Christ. Catholicism does not "assume the work of the Holy Ghost" rather it is through the Church that the Holy Ghost works. Mary, no matter how much the ignorant wish to repeat it, is not an "idol" or worshiped as a goddess. It's one thing for a Catholic apologist to defend the Church's ACTUAL teachings - quite another to point out the outright LIES being spewed forth by Mr. Gilbert. 

Because of this our Catholic friends, neighbours and family are in grave danger and need our love, urgent prayers and evangelistic efforts! 

Well, please don't get me wrong - I appreciate your love and prayers - but your "evangelistic efforts" are misdirected and based in falsehood - which is precisely why I reach out to organizations such as yours, Mr. Gilbert, so that you might realize the error of your ways and join me in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those are the "Four Marks" of the true Christian Church as put forth in the early creeds of Christendom - and absolutely NO Protestant or so-called Evangelical church can make claim to all Four Marks.

By understanding Roman Catholicism better as a system, we can avoid the pitfalls that can occur when we look at the parts in isolation. We become convinced that we need to be intentional and persistent in our evangelism to Catholics to present them with the biblical gospel. Finally, by understanding how Catholics think about God we can present that gospel in a way that makes sense to them.

Mr. Gilbert, I would suggest that before you try to "reach us" that you actually LEARN what WE TEACH and leave the anti-Catholic propaganda behind. I'm sure your audience would not appreciate finding out that you lie to them in order to gain their following. So, engage me in the Catholic Debate Forum where myself - and several other well-suited Catholic apologists would be more than happy to respond to you and set you straight.

AMDG,

Scott Windsor<<<

Tradition and Authority

Catholic states:
In your worldview if one has a different understanding even on eternal matters of truth as in matters of faith and/or doctrine then they are the ones who must be wrong.  That makes YOU the ultimate authority, the pillar and bulwark of the truth if you will.

Protestant replies:
1. The word of God is the authority but you rob the authority with your tradition don't you? Matt:15:6

2. The called out separated ones (ecclesia) is the pillar and base of the truth aren't they?  1 Tim. 3:15

Catholic answers:
About comment #1
First, the Word of God is not wholly contained in Scripture (John 21:25). 

Second, I would only be robbing the authority of the word of God with our traditions IF I went against the Word of God instead of what you (mis)understand the written Word of God to mean. 

Third, the final authority given to us by God in understanding the Word of God (whether written or oral) is not Scripture or your understanding of Scripture but the Church.

About comment #2
Unless the Church is visible, somewhere to go to settle issues between the called out separated ones then the collection of called out separated ones cannot determine with authority what is true in such a matter as to settle the issue.  Without an authoritative Church, the Church is useless in settling issues making Jesus' directives moot in Mat 18:15-18 and Paul's description of the Church as useless in 1 Tim 3:15.

Protestant replies:
your spirit is dead.

END

What do you do when someone answers your well-thought out replies with something like this?  Sometimes the best thing to do is to just let it go.  You’ve done your job.  You’ve planted the seeds.  Hopefully, with the help of God and your ongoing prayers those seeds will germinate and grow.

God Bless
Nathan

Christ Obeys The Priest

Do men, specifically priests, have authority over God Almighty?

“The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. ” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

We see this quote thrown at us often, and what did Fr. O'Brien mean by these words?  Quite simply, when the priest consecrates the Eucharist he is obeying the command from Jesus Christ to "Do this..." and when he "does this..." then that which was mere bread, Jesus comes down out of Heaven and changes the substance of the bread into the substance of Himself.  The substance of that which was mere wine becomes the substance of His Most Precious Blood.  The "humble obedience" which Fr. O'Brien refers to is God remaining consistent to His own command.  If God did not "obey" the priest's command then the command of Jesus telling our first priests to "do this..." becomes a lie, because if God does not "obey" then when the priest holds up the Sacred Host and/or Sacred Chalice and declares "this IS My body..." and "this IS My blood..." it would be a lie - and that would make Jesus' command to them meaningless and also a lie.

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (St. Augustine, Psalms 33:1:10)  This quote and more from St. Augustine found here:  Was St. Augustine Catholic?

A Forward, A Nihil Obstat and An Imprimatur

SW:  In a discussion on the Catholic Debate Forum I was debating an atheist with the initials "MJ" who claimed the Forward to the Jerome Bible Commentary (JBC), written by Cardinal Bea of the Pontifical Bible Commission (PBC) was his "imprimatur" stating "nothing offensive."  Those with even a little bit of Catholic understanding and education can probably see where this is headed.

MJ responded:  But the Catholic Encyclopedia denies you that much freedom to disagree when it comes to your obligation to believe non-binding interpretations of the bible set forth by the Pontifical Bible Commission:

SW: The CE is not an official Catholic authority which can deny or permit anything - it is an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias have articles which are the opinions of the person(s) writing the articles.  The CE has no authority. 

MJ goes on to quote (which he had cited in an earlier posting on CDF) from the CE:

Authority of its decisions  The Commission though formed like a Congregation is not a Congregation but seemingly of lower rank. Its decisions are approved by the pope and published by his command. Such approval, when given in formâ communi, does not change the nature of the decisions as emanating from a Congregation or Commission, nor does it make them specifically pontifical acts; much less does it imply an exercise of the pope's personal prerogative of infallibility. Hence they are not infallible or unchangeable, though they must be received with obedience and interior assent, by which we judge that the doctrine proposed is safe and to be accepted because of the authority by which it is presented. These decisions are not the opinions of a private assembly, but an official directive norm; to question them publicy would be lacking in respect and obedience to legitimate authority. We are not hindered from private study of the reasons on which they are based, and if some scholar should find solid arguments against a decision they should be set before the Commission.

SW:  Note, "We are not hindered from private study of the reasons on which they are based, and if some scholar should find solid arguments against a decision they should be set before the Commission."  In short, we can disagree privately with PBC decisions - we are not "bound" per se, but we must receive them in obedience and interior assent - in short, we must be respectful of the office, especially if we are in disagreement with the office.

MJ: how much sophistry must be engaged in to distinguish "must be recieved with obedience and interior assent" from "must be accepted as true"?  The more you refuse to agree with the above-highlighted part of the CE, the more you help make my case that exactly what Catholic sources on Catholic authority are reliable and which aren't, is confusing.

SW:  I did not know you were making a case for this being confusing and you were apparently confused yourself, MJ, in arguing on one had that we MUST obey/believe these "non-binding" decisions, while on the other hand you were denying any such authority existed, for it had fallen into "disuse."

MJ: Again, from the official Catechism, we find a similar statement that demands obligatory belief in something specifically denied to be infallible:

From http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. 

SW:  Yes, this is in reference to something of faith or morals when they teach something in accordance with "the ordinary Magisterium."  That is, when a bishop teaches something which is in accord with the pope and the rest of the bishops - it must be obeyed.  This is NOT a statement that we must adhere to a given commentary on Scripture.

MJ continues:

From http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1988/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19881015_usa-ad-limina.html

Pope John Paul II: "With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will." (Address to U.S. Bishops, 1988).

MJ:  Apparently, my understanding of Catholicism is correct:  The non-infallible nature of a teaching is not your ticket to freely dissent.  You can still violate official Catholic teaching by disagreeing with non-infallible teachings.

SW:  No sir.  Your understanding is not correct.  You even quoted the proper understanding, but then ignore it.  We MAY disagree - PRIVATELY - and if solid evidence is found to the contrary then we can and should submit our finding(s) to the Commission. 

SW:  The JBC, while it has some good points, is also chalked full of "commentary" from the modernist and dissenting views of Fr. Brown & Co.  Again the irony - you're citing a commentary which dissents from orthodox Catholic teaching and then challenging OUR ability to dissent from that commentary!

MJ:  So at the end of the day, there is no meaning to "be received with religious submission of mind and will".  Your obligation under those words disappears just as fast as you can say "I think this Catholic theologian got it wrong".

SW:  Well, not exactly.   Our cause for dissent must be more than just "I think this Catholic theologian got it wrong."  If you have hard evidence said theologian is wrong, that's another story.  

SW: So, let's backtrack here a bit.  MJ presented the JBC interpretation of the Parable of the Talents.  Keep in mind, the Jerome Bible COMMENTARY is just that, a COMMENTARY.  The editors and censores deputati of the nihil obstat (one and the same, in this case) along with Cardinal Bea (who wrote the Forward) stated it was their HOPE that the commentary would find widespread use.  There is no "command" to be obeyed here.  

SW:  Next, MJ cites the imprimatur - which he stated was written by Cardinal Bea, and accurately states that he is a member of the PBC, which DOES have SOME authority.  The problem we have here is MJ is taking this OPINION and transferring the authority of the PBC to the JBC, where no such transfer takes place in reality.  ALSO, Cardinal Bea did NOT grant the imprimatur (permission to be printed), Abp. Shehan of Baltimore did.  Cardinal Bea wrote the Forward.  MJ's citation is absolutely false.  

SW:  Just because someone who belongs to the PBC expresses HIS OPINION in support of the JBC, this cannot be equivocated to the PBC granting the same opinion.  Likewise, even the pope - as Mr. Conte points out, when he expresses his PERSONAL OPINION, even if it be a theological opinion, is not to be taken as a binding teaching.  An example of this is the papal opinion on the death penalty - he disapproves of it, but faithful Catholics may stand in support of it.  We must respect his opinion, but we don't have to go along with it.

SW:  The rational thinker must be questioning - why would the editors of the JBC not seek to receive the nihil obstat from someone else who was not connected to the production of the JBC?  Perhaps Fr. Brown did seek this from others, but either a) could not find anyone else or b) just took the easy path (Matt. 7:13-14).

SW:  I, for one, would take the COMMENTARY of St. John Chrysostom over the JBC on this one.  The point of the parable is to put that which God has given you to work.  Don't bury it or hide it (put it to disuse) but get out there and USE it!  The parable has nothing to do with the "power" of the disciples, but with how one USES the gifts/graces from God.  See St. Chrysostom's full commentary here:  http://fisheaters.com/parables18.html

Other Catholic commentaries on the Parable of the Talents:

The Catholic Exchange, article by Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio http://catholicexchange.com/the-parable-of-the-talents-2

Bp. Barron (then Fr. Barron) offers this video commentary on the Parable of the Talents:

Catholic World Report, Bp. Robert Barron, Archdiocese of Los Angeles (similar to video above). http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3380/the_deeper_meaning_of_the_parable_of_the_talents.aspx

Haydock Bible Commentary (with nihil obstat and imprimatur) http://haydock1859.tripod.com/confraternity/id33.html

SW: Now, I had also read that the editors of the JBC were the self-imposed Censores Deputati, the "officials" who would declare the "nihil obstat" (nothing offensive to the Catholic Faith).  I looked around and could not find proof of this, so I purchased the JBC of 1968 and sure enough, here's what I found:

Please share!

  The quoted portions of this message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.
  All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
  permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
  this footer remains attached to the message.
  To visit this group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/

Summary of Responses to Lester Alberque

The "Community" section of BeliefNet went "read only" as of today.  I was hoping it was at the end of the day so I could post my final responses there - but it has already happened, so I will post my final replies to that forum here.  Participants there are free to continue here or join the Catholic Debate Forum (CDF) if they would prefer a more interactive online/email forum.

For Lester Alberque, aka:  AristotlesChild, I will summarize some of our recent discussions in this posting.  If a deeper discussion is desired, separate postings can be started, or Les can do what is necessary to return to posting in CDF.  There were more discussions, but

Is Original Sin Still a Catholic Dogma?

Oct 13, 2015 -- 10:34AM, AristotlesChild wrote:

Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:15PM, Cathapol wrote:

CA:  How about reading CCC 404 (context seems to get you all the time!)

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".²⁹³ By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.²⁹⁴ It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

CA >>How about reading CCC 404 (context seems to get you all the time!)<<

AC: Ah yes! The old context ploy. Part of what the Council of Trent (Session 5) is still carried forward in Catholic teaching.

However, the second part about personal guilt (the "stain" that everybody had, except Mary) got dropped.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

So if none of Adam's descendents have the personal fault (or guilt, or stain) of Original Sin, we are all immaculate conceptiones, aren't we? There goes the dogma of (only Mary's) Immaculate Conception.

CA:  Wrong again!  Still within the context of the above:

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491.htm

CA:  So we clearly see that the "second part" from Trent is NOT dropped and is echoed by Pope Pius IX and in the modern CCC.

CA: I do thank you for conceding:

AC:  Ah yes! The old context ploy. Part of what the Council of Trent (Session 5) is still carried forward in Catholic teaching.

CA:  And I add, "context" is not a "ploy" - it is a means of coming to the TRUTH by showing MORE of what was ACTUALLY SAID and, as usual, context betrays you, Les.  To what you did present, Original Sin is NOT about the "personal guilt" of "actual sin" it is about the inherited or hereditary sin of Adam, which is part of our fallen nature.  The only "ploy" here is the one whereby you tend to label anything which contradicts your fallen arguments as a ploy.

BOTTOM LINE:   The Dogma on Original Sin is still a dogma of the Catholic Faith, as it MUST be for once dogmatically defined - it cannot be "un-dogma'd."  

CA:  Nothing in ANY of Les' arguments proves that the Catholic Church has "changed" its position on this matter of dogma.  Les rationalizes a change, but in reality does not demonstrate.

Did Jesus Build His Church?

Les posits that He did not...

AC:  Jesus thought himself to be an end-time prophet who would return during his generation. See the New Testament. Obviously he did not.
His followers did not found a new Church, but remained observant Temple worshipping Jews (a sect within Judaism - see Acts) until the parting of the ways about 85 AD.

CA:  Nowhere do we have Scripture telling us that Christianity was a sect within Judaism.  The fact is, Jesus selected The Twelve who are our first bishops.  Those bishops passed on the authority Jesus gave to them to guide/lead His Sheep - with St. Peter given primacy.  We have that same structure to this day, regardless if they still went into the synagogues to worship and preach to the Jews - OR - of Les' rationalizations.  Jesus did indeed build His Church.

THE Fundamental Issue:  AUTHORITY

AC quotes:  "We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  [Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, promulgated November 18, 1302,]

Is this infallible? If so, do all Catholics have to believe this?

And any non-Catholics not subject to the Pope can’t be saved?

CA:  Well, that's not exactly what it says!  Just because some do not admit to being subject to the pope does not mean they aren't.  I know a few people who insist that President Obama is not their president - that doesn't make it not so.  That being said, some argue that Unam Sanctum is infallible, others argue it is not.  

AC adds:  And how about this?

 “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” [Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Sapientiae Christianae  1890]

Do all Catholics in good standing believe this too?

CA:  Yes, Catholics in good standing need to be in submission and obedience to the will of the Church and to the pope, as to God Himself.  Now that would have limits.  I left out the word "complete" on purpose.  1) This is not an infallible statement and 2) if "obedience" is intrinsically evil or immoral then we would be obliged NOT to obey. 

AristotlesChild aka: LittleLes Says Good-Bye

AC:  It's about time to say good-bye. It's been fun!

I assume you'll be returning to your former websites where, as moderator, you have the authority to control all dialogue.

I'll be continuing on a number of different websites.

On the other hand (there are four fingers and a thumb!), maybe I'll start my own site where I can be the moderator and find was for deleting posters who disagree with my views, and have the authority, to do so! Apparently, Yahoo Groups is looking for a few good men!

Regards,

AC/ formerly LL

CA:  Well, if this is good-bye, sobeit Les.  I came to BeliefNet at your invitation, but I'm not going to chase you around - you know where I am.  As for your allegation that I have "the authority to control all the websites" I run, well - again, except for the AmericanCatholicTruthSociety.com (which has no forums "on" it) I don't "run" the other "websites."  I do moderate forums on Yahoogroups and this blog on Blogger.  Yes, I DO have the authority to "control all dialog," but I don't.   I allow the free-flow of dialog unless someone breaks the rules.  You are one who broke the rules on the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups (CDF), so you were put on moderation.  The rule you broke was not documenting yourself - OR - you COULD have left your statement as it was and state it was your opinion (since you could not provide valid documentation).  You refused to withdraw the statement you made as fact, or state it was your opinion.  Your obstinate refusal to submit to the moderator request brought the moderation upon you - AND it is STILL within YOUR CONTROL to have that moderation removed!  You have three options:   1) Provide the documentation (which you've already admitted does not exist) or 2) retract your statement or 3) stand firm in your statement, that it is your belief - and your opinion.  Any one of those three options - and moderation would be removed (you're STILL a member of CDF, so you could go back to unmoderated posting immediately).

CA:  As I said, I will not be following Les to other forums - I joined BeliefNet basically after Les challenged that I could not withstand discussion with him in a forum I did not control - and he was proven wrong there too.  He knows where to find me - he knows how to have unmoderated access to CDF and he's not moderated here on the CathApol Blog.  It appears he'd rather be a self-declared martyr than come back to engage in valid discussion where we first met.

Authority

What an interesting sequence of Gospel readings we have when we look at last week’s Gospel reading and then the one for this week.  We read last week that Jesus told the Apostles: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And then He breathes on them and says: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

We see here that Jesus sent the Apostles as the Father sent Him, with the power to forgive, or retain, sins.  Now, when we look at the specifics of how Jesus was sent we find that he was sent not only with the power to forgive sins but that He can confer this power to others as seen in Matt 9:6 where even the scribes and publicans were in awe that God had given authority to forgive sins to ‘human beings’.  Notice the plural.  Not just to Jesus but to ‘men’, plural.

 

What other powers did Jesus give the Apostles?  Well, in Mark 6 we find that Jesus, “[c]alling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.” (v.7) Jesus gave them authority over impure spirits.  We also find in Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus gives the Apostles the power to bind and loose infallibly (“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Mat 18:18)  Since whatever they bound or loosed on Earth would also be bound and loosed in heaven because we know that nothing untrue can be bound or loosed in heaven.

 

The context in each of these selection of verses makes it clear that Jesus gave this power to the Apostles and not to all followers.  This is why we know that for this power to be here in His Church until His return means that the power to confer this power to others must have been given to them as well.  This idea of ‘succession’ is found in many different places in Scripture but the clearest ones are found in today’s Gospel reading.  “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to [Jesus].” (Mat 28:18)

Jesus was sent with the power of heaven and earth and confers the power to forgive and retain sins, authority over impure spirits and the power to bind and loose infallibly.  I also contend that the Apostles were also given the power to confer these attributes to others who would succeed them since we know that the Apostles were described as the authority in the

 

Church.  Just have a quick look at Matthew 18 and you’ll see what I mean.   Speaking to the twelve Jesus tells them: “if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.  “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (v.17-18)

 

And because we know that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church means that this authority to bind and loose infallibly will always be present in the world, which means that there will always be those who have authority to bind and loose infallibly in the Church, at least until His return.  For this to be possible tells us that the power confer these attributes to others was also part of what was handed down to the Apostles from Jesus Himself.  Jesus was sent with the power to impart the powers to bind and loose, to forgive or retain or authority over impure spirits because we read in today’s Gospel that “[a]ll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Him]”.  This tells us that the Apostles received the power to impart these same powers to others as well.

 

The handing on of these powers has always been done through the laying on of hands throughout the centuries via there successors all the way to today’s bishops beginning with Jesus handing on this authority to His Apostles and they to those who would succeed them.

 

God Bless
Nathan

 

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com
 Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner