Spiritual Protection

 Spiritual Warfare - A video by Fr. Ripperger

 

A discussion of exorcism and how to defend yourself from attacks from evil. The importance of remaining in the state of grace and to participate frequently in the Sacrament of Confession.

 

Share your thoughts and comments!

Sacrament and Sacramental

This can be a confusing topic...

Sacraments

What is a Sacrament?  That's a fairly easy one to define as Catholic theology books and catechisms cover it quite well. One such definition we find in the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 574. What is a Sacrament?
A. A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.
(Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Lesson 13, 1891)

Sacramentals

However, when it comes to a Sacramental, the definition is a bit harder to pin down. Using the same source as above, we find:

Q. 1052. What is a sacramental?

A. A sacramental is anything set apart or blessed by the Church to excite good thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin.
(Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Lesson 27, 1891)

However, the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us this definition:

1667 "Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals. These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy."
(CCC 1667,  1992)

Vatican II (1963) puts it this way:

These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church's intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.

And a more traditional view:

The sacramentals were not instituted by Our Lord, like the Sacraments, but by the Church in order to increase our respect for the latter or to give us special favors. The sacramentals do not produce grace by themselves, but they prepare our spiritual dispositions to receive it.
(Fitzgerald, n.d.)

We can take a bit of an issue with this one since some sacramentals clearly were divinely instituted (by Christ), such as the use of objects/things such as the hem of his garment was used to heal the sick (Matthew 9:20) and exorcism - while the full rite was not explicitly defined by Christ, clearly He did exorcise demons (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-17).

Perhaps the best way to define is to go to the Latin. A Sacrament, according to the Council of Trent, the Latin phrase is: "ex opere operato." The literal translation being, "the work, worked." In other words, it is agent independent for its efficacy - it works automatically (Byrne, 1990, p. 134). Whereas with a sacramental the Latin phrase is "ex opere operantis," which literally means "from the work of the doer." In short, a Sacrament is not dependent upon the state of the recipient. If the proper matter, form and intent is used through the appropriate minister - the Sacrament happens. On the other hand, a sacramental is based on the act of the doer. Blessing ones self with holy water, for example is efficacious, but not necessarily sprinkling someone else with holy water who is not accepting of it (you can chase those "door knockers" all you want and sprinkle them with holy water - the "effect" in that case is - they get wet).

The Sacramentals - a St. John's University Film Strip

   References:

Byrne, E. F. (1990). Work, Inc.: a philosophical inquiry.
        Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

CCC 1667. (1992, October 11). Paragraph 1667. 
        Retrieved November 27, 2017,  from 
        http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1667.htm  
        Promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II

Fitzgerald, C. (n.d.). Don't Forget Sacramentals. 
        Retrieved November 27, 2017, from 
        http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d012rpSacramentals_Fitzgerald.html

Sacramentals - a 1960's Film Strip from St. John's 
        University, retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBjkin-mBE 

Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. (1891). BALTIMORE        CATECHISM - ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
        Retrieved November 27, 2017, from 
        http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson13.htm    
        and from
        http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson27.htm

Vatican II. (1963, December 4). SACROSANCTUM 
         CONCILIUM Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,
         Chapter III, Paragraph 60. Retrieved 
         November 27, 2017, from 
         http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2litur.htm 
         Promulgated by Pope Paul VI


 

What Does Baptism Do

What does baptism do?  We know through Scripture that baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ.   “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)

Baptism brings us in communion with each other by becoming members of the One Body of Christ.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

(Gal 3:27)

We are brought into the Body of Christ, the Church.

And he is the head of the body, the church (Col 1:18)

and,

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1:22-23)

Since we are baptized into the one body of Christ and we now know that Christ’s Body is the Church means that baptism brings us into the Church.  And this is why there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation outside of Christ.

Baptism is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant symbol of circumcision.  As the Hebrews circumcised those for entrance into God’s Covenant with Israel, so too does the New Covenant fulfillment of circumcision bring entrance into the New Covenant of God to His Church through baptism.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God. (Col 2:11-12)

If eight-day old children could enter the Old Covenant through circumcision via the faith of their parents how much more so can infants become adopted children of God through the New Covenant circumcision, baptism?  The New Covenant is much more inclusive than the Old seeing as the New can include the gentiles as opposed to those of the line of Abraham.

We have seen that baptism fulfills the Old Covenant practice of circumcision (Col 2:11-12).  Baptism was prophesied by Ezekiel to bring graces through the sprinkling of water (Ez 36:25-27) and washes away sins (Ez 36:26; Acts 2:38). 

What else is baptism for?  Well, is baptism necessary for salvation?  The answer, very plainly is YES.  “…eight in all, were saved through water.  This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.” (1 Pet 3:20-21).  Pretty simple.  As plain as it can get.  Jesus taught this also in the Gospel of John

“Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again." Nicodemus doesn’t understand and so Jesus repeats himself, He says "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

One is born again through baptism, and that through baptism one can enter the kingdom of God, the Church…

And so we see that baptism brings Graces from God (Acts 2:38), washes away sins (Acts 2:38), we enter into a covenant with God through baptism (Col 2:11-12), we become Christians through baptism (1 Cor 12:13) by becoming members of the Church as through a door (Eph 4:4).  And baptism is instituted by Jesus Christ when He sent out the disciples to “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mat 28:19)

Please take the time to read what the Early Church believed about baptism and you’ll find a unanimous consensus on baptismal regeneration and the acceptance of infant baptism. 

God Bless
Nathan

Ten Areas of Deception of Catholics Part IV

I have now dealt with five of the "Ten Areas of Deception" in my previous three posts: Part I, dealt with the first 2 "deceptions", Part II dealt with the third "deception, followed by Part III dealt with some of the anonymous Protestant's problems with Mary and a couple of Marian sacramentals: the Rosary and the Brown Scapular.

*****************Part IV Begins here:
On to the next statements.
Next the anonymous author of the tract said:

[6] Catholics think the sacraments are a means of them receiving grace needed for salvation.

I would just like to preface my statements under this so-called "deception", that I do not believe any of his statements are indeed deceptions. However, Catholics do think the Sacraments are a means of receiving grace. Why? Because every single one of the Sacraments was instituted by Jesus Christ to give grace.

1) BAPTISM
This Sacrament was instituted by Christ and is necessary to be "born again" in "water and the spirit."

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15, 16)

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit." (John 3:5, 6)

The Catholic believes that the commands of Jesus are "the standard of Christian conduct." (Notes for Matt. 28:20) Jesus commanded the apostles to Baptize with His power. He gave them the power and the command to baptize. All Christians should take that seriously.

St. Peter took this commandment very seriously:

Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2: 38,39)

Baptism was an important command of Our Lord Jesus to all Christians. It was instituted in the Church at the very beginning.

"She and her household had been baptized" (Acts 16:15)

"Then he and all his family were baptized at once." (Acts 16:33)

"Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

Whole households/families were baptized. This was to make them Christians; the entire family, men, women, children, were baptized as Jesus had commanded.

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit." (I Cor. 12:13)

We were meant to be one in this baptism; it was both saving and unifying.

"Who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." (I Peter 3:20-22)

Baptism saves. Those who actually study scripture, let alone Christian history will understand that. What else can be said about it? Why do some who call themselves Christians deny its value in the plan of salvation? If you are not baptized according to Jesus Christ's word, are you "saved?" In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to say "yes" if you believe in Scripture.

2) CONFIRMATION
This Sacrament completes Baptism with a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and strengthens the Christian for their mission. This happened at Pentecost; the Holy Spirit came down on the apostles  and, by the way, they went out and eventually baptized about 3,000 people that day. 

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you." (John 14:16, 17)

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit. It was a gift of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (or through the Son as the Orthodox would put it).  And, the apostles received the Holy Spirit 10 days after the Ascension of Jesus Christ.

And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. (Acts 2:3)

The early Christians received charismatic gifts or signs that the Holy Spirit was present. For instance, the apostles spoke in tongues--the languages of the people waiting to hear them speak. The laying on of hands was the passing on of the Holy Spirit by the apostles, which is the Sacrament of Confirmation.

"Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit." (Acts 8:17)

"And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19: 6)

This laying on of hands is how the Holy Spirit was given to each successive generations of Christians. Today, the bishop lays his hands on the Confirmation candidates and they receive the renewing and strengthening of the Holy Spirit as promised us by Jesus Christ Himself.

3) EUCHARIST
What more is there to say about the Eucharist; Christ said it all. We, Catholics, believe what He said. It has been explained over and over and over by Catholic apologists since the beginning of the Church.

It is obvious to us that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ. The earliest account of the Sacrament in the Church is from the first letter of Paul to the Church at Corinth (I Corinthians) which scholars believe was written before the Gospel account.

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was handed over, took bread, and, after He had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is My body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

(I Cor. 11:23-29)

Here we see how much St. Paul believes in the truth of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. If one does not discern the body and blood of the Lord, one brings judgment on oneself. How could a symbol bring judgment on anyone? There is no equivocation on this in Paul's account of the Eucharist and how it was passed down to him, and how he was passed it down to the church in Corinth.

But beyond St. Paul's account of the Tradition of passing down the Eucharist and its form, we see how Christ instituted this Himself, in His own words, witnessed by St. Matthew, one of His chosen.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to His disciples said, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” (Matthew 26:26-29)

This is a straight forward command by Jesus (which "should be the standard of Christian conduct") "This is My Body" He did not say "This is a symbol of My body." He said, "This IS My Body." For Catholics, it is just that simple--He said it; we believe it. He also said the wine was "My blood of the covenant..." He did not say it was a symbol of His blood; He said it WAS His blood. For Catholics, it is just that simple--He said it; we believe it. (Yes, I repeated that on purpose.)

We also believe that John chapter six tells us how He explained the what the Eucharist would mean to His apostles before the Last Supper; what it means to us now.

So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me and this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

The Jews murmured about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know His father and mother? Then how can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all by taught by God.' Everyone who listens to My Father and learns from Him comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the Bread of Life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from Heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will have life because of Me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:32-58)

Here the true Bible-believers, Catholics, believe Jesus and take Him at His word. See how many times He says EAT and DRINK, which one must do to have life. We take His explanation of Himself, the Bread from Heaven, at His word.

Then many of His disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it? (John 6:60)

If the disciples (not the 12 apostles) thought that He was speaking symbolically, why would they have a problem with it? It is obvious to those who have an open mind and heart that they were having a hard time accepting what He said because they took His words literally. In ancient times, telling the people to eat His flesh symbolically, would be the equivalent of someone saying "Bite me" today. It would have been an insult and the disciples could not imagine He was insulting them; He must therefore, have meant it literally.

The passage goes on:

Since Jesus knew that His disciples were murmuring about this, He said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?  It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” (John 6:61-65)

He asked them, as many Catholics asked Protestants, "Does this shock you?" What would be shocking if He was speaking symbolically? It would be insulting, as I stated previously, but it would not be shocking. Some Protestants like to explain it away by stating that Jesus said that the flesh is of no avail. Do Protestants really believe JESUS'S FLESH is of no avail? Then why in the world would one believe that Jesus was the savior of the world? If HIS FLESH is of no avail then what was the point of His dying on the cross? There would be no point. When He says flesh is of no avail, He is talking about the world versus the spirit. The words that he spoke which are "spirit and life" are His words that HE is the Bread from Heaven, that if we do not EAT His Flesh (bread) and DRINK His blood (wine) we cannot have LIFE. We believe Him.

We believe Jesus Christ at His word and believe, upon penalty of judgment, that He gave us His Flesh and His blood to consume; It is that which gives us eternal life. And, yes, the old accusation of cannibalism is a very old one. The early church had been accused of killing babies and eating them at their ceremonies. Not only was it not true then, it is not true today. And, no, the Body and Blood of Christ do not go through our digestive system to be excreted--one of the nastiest accusations a Protestant said on CDF once. Just as some nutrients are absorbed in the mouth before going to the stomach, so the Presence and Spirit of Jesus Christ becomes part of our souls before we even swallow the bread and wine. We don't excrete Christ; we become one with Him in Spirit and Truth.

The last statement under this "deception" says,

Such false teaching has also placed the Catholic in the mind set of thinking he must remain in the Catholic system to go to Penance and get communion (Holy Eucharist), which they also think should be worshiped as God.

i) It is not false teaching; it is Christ's teaching.
ii) The Catholic Church is not a "system"; it is the Body of Christ.
iii) I will touch on Penance next.
iv) Think about this: IF one believes that the Real Presence of Jesus is in the Bread, and IF one believes that means that it has transubstantiated (changed substance) into Jesus' real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, why wouldn't one worship Jesus in the flesh? It only makes common sense. We worship Christ in the Flesh--not a piece of bread; as it is no longer bread but Jesus.

4) PENANCE

"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to His apostles. In the above verse, He is speaking to St. Peter. He gave St. Peter the authority to forgive or not forgive.  What is forgiven on Earth is forgiven in Heaven.

In a different incidence after the Resurrection, Jesus Christ gave this power to all the apostles:

[Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”  (John 20: 21-23)

Here He gave an even more clear command. The apostles were sent out by Him as the Father had sent Him. He breathed the Holy Spirit on them and gave them a clear statement that they were to have the power to forgive sins. It is as clear as a blue sky.

And for the information of the Protestant, the priest is a physical representative of Jesus Christ in the confessional. There is nothing more comforting the actually hearing the words, "You are forgiven." It is relieving to hear it out loud. The Lord gave us five senses, hearing being one of them, and they enhance our spiritual experience in the church.

5) ANOINTING OF THE SICK

Christ and late His apostles healed the sick. Christ even brought people back from the dead.

People brought to Him all those who were sick and begged Him that they might touch only the tassel on His cloak, and as many as touched it were healed. (Matthew 14:35b-36)

"They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. (Mark 6:13)


The tradition of anointing the sick is clear in this passage:

"Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:14-15)

The Catechism explains this Tradition very well:

1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.¹²⁵  125 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15.125 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15.

1512 From ancient times in the liturgical traditions of both East and West, we have testimonies to the practice of anointings of the sick with blessed oil. Over the centuries the Anointing of the Sick was conferred more and more exclusively on those at the point of death. Because of this it received the name "Extreme Unction." Notwithstanding this evolution the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health if it would be conducive to his salvation.¹²⁶  126 Cf. Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1696.

1513 The Apostolic Constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum,¹²⁷ following upon the Second Vatican Council,¹²⁸ established that henceforth, in the Roman Rite, the following be observed: 127 Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972.
128 Cf. SC 73.

The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given to those who are seriously ill by anointing them on the forehead and hands with duly blessed oil - pressed from olives or from other plants - saying, only once: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."¹²⁹  129 Cf. CIC, Can. 847 § 1.123 Jas 5:14-15.

It may help healing or it may prepare the sick for death, note that sins are forgiven in this Sacrament. St. James outlines the healing Sacrament clearly. Again, Catholics take this Scriptural Tradition literally. Asking the Lord for healing certainly is not a "deception".

6) HOLY ORDERS

The threefold division of sacred ministers (bishops, priests and deacons)  prefigured in the Old Law (high priest, priests, Levites) is clearly revealed in Scripture. Yet, most so-called "bible-believing" Protestant churches do not have them. (Rev. Donovan, EWTN contributor)

The Sacrament was pre-figured in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the Church.

So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. (Acts 6:3-6)

Here we see the twelve in a dilemma; they were too busy and needed men to help them. So they chose seven men to help with "serv[ing] at table", in other words the Eucharist, and laid hands on them and prayed over them. Those chosen became priests anointed by the bishops (apostles).

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:2-3)

Here is another incident of the laying on of hands and sending. Here Barnabas and Saul are made priests to help in the work at Antioch.

And, the tradition of celibate priests came from the fact that they gave their whole lives to Christ and His Kingdom. It is also implicit in Scripture:

 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”                  (Matt. 19:10-12)

Here are other Scriptures describing the qualifications of the bishops (and priests) and deacons, and the use of this gift of the laying on of hands: 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-9; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Tim. 5:17-19; 1 Tim. 5:22.

7) MATRIMONY

 Marriage is, as St. Paul states, a mystery (mysterion).  The Latin word used to translate mysterion is "sacramentum". The sacraments are mysteries (as Eastern Christians still call them), for  one thing is visible and something else is known by faith. By faith, matrimony is a sign of Christ and the Church, as well as a special calling. Mt. 19:10-11; Eph. 5:31-32.

 “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband. (Eph. 5:31-33;  Paul is quoting Jesus as testified to  in Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7,8)

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
These definitions and Scripture lists are from an EWTN article written by Rev. Colin Donovan called Sacraments in Scripture.

The anonymous author also said,

Because Catholics have been taught this way, they are trusting in the sacraments for salvation instead of the Lord Jesus as the Bible declares. 

On the contrary, we don't "trust in the sacraments for salvation instead of the Lord Jesus Christ." Each and every one of the Sacraments was instituted by Christ and attested to in the Scriptures. In obedience to our Lord, we depend on Him for our salvation. One of the things I don't understand about supposed "Bible-believing Christians" is that they don't actually obey Christ's commands in the Bible, ie, "Go into all nations...baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In "trusting" in the Sacraments we are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ironically, the author does not cite a lick of Scripture in his condemnation of Catholicism here.) The dependence on the Sacraments is not a "deception"; his is a false premise.

[7] Catholics confess their sins to a priest instead of to God.

Indeed Catholics do not confess their sins to a priest instead of to God. Confession in the Sacrament is confessing to God. This, again, is a false premise.  He (the anonymous author) said,

 "We can go directly to God, without a priest or Mary and get forgiven, if we go in repentance, sincerity and humility" (Luke 18:13,14)

This statement, to me, would seem to be the opposite of humility. Yes, we can "go directly to God" but we can also use the means of Confession He instituted. (See discussion above on the Sacraments).

And, I am not sure what he is trying to emphasize by citing the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. All who come to the Sacrament of Confession come in humility. One who is not humble and sincerely sorry is not, I suspect, going to go any where near the confessional, anyway.

I would counter his statement with these:

If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.        (James 5:15b,16)

Paul believes he was given the "ministry of reconciliation".

And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:18,19)

Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.  2 Cor 2:10

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."⁴² The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."⁴³  42 2 Cor 5:18. 43 2 Cor 5:20. CCC 1442

Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."⁵⁴ 54 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. Ex 20:17; Mt 5:28.

When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."⁵⁵  55 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. St. Jerome, In Eccl. 10,11:PL 23:1096.  CCC 1456

Yes, we can go directly to God, but we can also go to the priest. He stands in the place of Jesus in the Sacraments, especially confession. Jesus is saying, "Your sins are forgiven you." It is powerful to hear those words.

Next,

[8]  Catholics who read and believe the Fatima Visions are dangerously thinking that Mary is our refuge and the way that will lead them to God.
[9] Many Catholics are just hoping to enter Purgatory and there get purged of their sins to afterwards go to Heaven.
[10] Catholics have been lethally misinformed about how to show their love for the Lord Jesus.

God-parents

A few days ago I was asked by a friend what I thought of the fact that one of her family members was refused baptism for their child because they wanted to have their brother, a baptized and confirmed Catholic who just happened to be living with her girlfriend, as their prospective godfather.

Being put on the spot, my reply was not as diplomatic as I would’ve liked but I gave it a good college try.  Well first, the Church Christ founded has a primary role of “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Mat 28:20)

So, one of the primary roles of the Church is to teach its members.  One way to assure a proper teaching is by making sure that those who are being baptized as babies will be raised learning the faith.  The Church simply needs a reasonable expectation that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith and the godparents are supposed to be role models for them.

Everybody sins, but if you repent, ask forgiveness and intend not to repeat the sin, then you are forgiven and are then accepted as a godparent to the child in question.  BUT, if you are an unrepentant sinner, that is that you are living with your girlfriend outside of marriage, well that’s called fornication and if you are unwilling to repent and turn of your ways then the Church simply tells you that you are not suitable as a godparent and the mother needs to choose another prospective godparent.

Now, if the mother is dead-set on an ineligible godparent then she herself inevitably delays the baptism until she is able to select someone who meets the requirements of the law.

So, let’s recap.  First the Church will never, ever refuse baptism to anyone which is a primary function of the Church is to teach and baptize, a commission given to the Church by Jesus directly (Mat 28).

Second, in performing their duty in teaching and performing baptism the Church also expects the parents and godparents to raise the baptized child in the Catholic faith by requiring the parents to choose godparents whom the Church can reasonably expect them to teach the child the Catholic faith even if only by example.  Is that really too much to ask?

God Bless
Nathan

Taking White to Task

In an "All Roman" edition of James White's Dividing Line program, as you can probably guess, White makes a number of faux pas comments.

1) White starts with making note of the controversy between Pope Francis and Donald Trump.  In this case it wasn't really a faux pas, as he actually stood up for the fact that Pope Francis was mistranslated (you can see my response to that incident here).  Look for the context, etc. "but that's not The Donald's way."  Then White criticizes Pope Francis for the statement about borders.  Has not White just done what he accused "The Donald" of doing?  Go back to what Pope Francis actually said AND his clarifications on the matter. However, White does go back to defending the pope's ability to make a statement about an individual person's faith...  reminding the listeners that it's really the responsibility for a religious leader to make such judgments.

2)  "Super Confessors - with super powers - where if you walk through certain doors - your sins will be forgiven."


Over 1100 priests were hand-picked to forgive sins normally reserved to being forgiven by the pope himself.  Let me start by quoting White:

So obviously medieval, so obviously unbiblical, I mean no one is going to honestly look at the New Testament and say, 'yah, that's what the Apostles were doing, the Apostles were, you know, opening doors and saying if you walk through this door you'll get forgiveness of sins.  And yah, that sacramental stuff, it developed over time, and you know, it's like Cardinal Newman said, the acorn to the tree and... and this is why Rome has to deny sola scriptura, of course, because if you limit yourself to what is theopneustos (God breathed) then you're never going to come up with this silly stuff.  You're not going to have super confessors, well first of all you're not going to have priests to begin with, ah, you're going to have one High Priest, Jesus, and everybody in the Body of Christ is a priest in one sense, I mean, there's no such thing as a sacramental priesthood (as) in Roman Catholicism.

Let's pause here as White himself pauses at a "squirrel" moment of someone posting a picture of Pope Francis, looking sternly, with the caption of "I'm watching you, James" (posted on Twitter).
a) What's this comment about gaining forgiveness of sins by walking through certain doors?  First off, we must correct White's misunderstanding (again) of Catholic teaching and tradition.  The "Holy Doors" (which traditionally were just four doors on four of Rome's basilicas) have been extended to include all the cathedrals in the world.  What is sought by those passing through them is not forgiveness of sins, but an indulgence.  Big difference here!  An indulgence is NOT the forgiving of a sin!  Indulgences relieve all or some of the temporal punishments which may remain after a sin is already forgiven.  There is no indulgence for a sin not yet forgiven.  That being said, if Matthew 16:18-19 be true, then St. Peter (and those who were "sent out" as his successors, more on that in a bit) has the authority not only to bind on Earth, which also binds in Heaven, but to loose on Earth which also looses in Heaven.  That which he looses is infallibly loosed - as an erroneous (or fallible) loosing cannot be loosed in Heaven.  Thus, when a pope decrees the temporal punishments are loosed (an indulgence) it MUST be so and has scriptural foundation.  White is simply wrong here (again) and misrepresents Catholicism (again) on this matter.
b) No such thing as a sacramental priesthood?  Let us remind the reader, and especially White, the definition of a a sacrament.  A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give/gain grace (grace = God's life in us).  So, with that in mind let us look at the sacramental initiation of the priesthood as it relates to the forgiveness of sins (we could also mention the sacramental initiation of the Eucharist, but this topic is on forgiveness, so let's stick with that example.  The "outward sign" is the actual forgiving of the sins.  Forgiving of sins is a means of grace.  In John 20:21-23, Jesus breathes upon them, The 12, and says to them:

²¹ Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” ²² And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³ If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (NIV)

So, this 1) sending and 2) receiving the Holy Spirit and 3) authority to forgive sins - was "instituted by Christ."  So, this "priesthood" (we also call Holy Orders) most definitely fits the definition of a sacrament - and quite clearly contains the authority to forgive sins.  Keep in mind, as He (Jesus) was sent out, He was sending them out - therefore they too, necessarily, needed to send others out with that same authority with which they were sent out.  White is simply wrong, again, in saying this is "unbiblical."

Back to the program...

3) "You didn't have venial v. mortal sins."  Really?  Again, White is wrong because this is clearly a scriptural teaching in 1 John 5:16-17 - 

¹⁶ If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

So there is a sin which leads to death (aka: mortal) and a sin which does not lead to death (aka: venial).  It cannot be more clear that White is again wrong in his statement on this.  

4) "What has this to do with Christianity?  Absolutely, positively, nothing at all.  It's as far removed from the Christian faith as can be.  See, once you abandon the standard which Jesus gave us, to test human traditions by what is written in Scripture, once you're convinced that doesn't work."  Really?  Even though the "Christian Scriptures" precisely teach that which White precisely rejects?  I have already demonstrated the scriptural foundation of these traditions.   The objective reader can surely see who is not presenting Christianity here!

5) Minutes 10-12 - Apostolic succession - too many vague, uncited allegations to answer to at this time, but virtually all, if not all, have been answering in the past.

6) I want to thank a Roman Catholic apologist.  Scott Eric Alt published an article on February 9, 2016, stating we (Catholic apologists) need to stop saying there are 33,000 denominations.  Alt goes on to say, "there are not, not even close to, 33,000 denominations.  Well, OK, but White represents this as if no other Catholic apologist has said this, to him or elsewhere, in the past.  This, again, is simply not true!  In 2011 I responded to White's attack on the Vortex - dispelling the myth of the 33,000.  In 2010 I presented the actual source of the 33,000 number - from Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001.  That 2010 article was actually a reposting of an article I had posted in 2007 on the Locutus Webboard (that webboard was taken down due to security issues it posed on our web server, fortunately, I had snagged the article before it was taken down).  I will repost the pertinent facts from the 2007 article:

Mega-bloc.......... | Denominations in 1995.. | Countries

Roman Catholic...| 239 ...............................| 234 (dividing it out, that's a statistical "1")

Orthodox............| 764 ..................................|133  (statistical = 6)

Protestant ..........| 8848 ...............................| 231  (statistical = 38)

Anglicans ...........| 168 .................................| 162 (statistical = 1)

Marginal ............| 1488 ................................| 215 (statistical = 7)

Independent ......| 21,582 ............................| 220 (statistical = 98)

Total .................| 33,089 ..............................| 237  (statistical = 140)

(David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 12)
(The "statistical" statements in parentheses were added by me, and I used Barrett's math.)

So, that's where the "33,000" figure came from.  It INCLUDES Catholics in the numbering of Christians, but using the editor's own math, Catholicism is a statistical "1" whereas Protestants are "38" groups, then add in the "98" independents then the Anglicans and Marginal and you can see the dividing of the Body of Christ - which is contrary to His Will.  That's 144 "denominattions" yet it is His Will is that we are to be One, just as He and the Father are One - and we WERE One, for over 1000 years when Orthodoxy split with Catholicism, and it would be another 500 years later that Protestantism would be born and further splits would be made from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Who else has corrected White on this faux pas? 

2004:  Dave Armstrong (in this Dave refers to a response he and Al Kresta wrote back in 2000, but that link is no longer valid:  https://web.archive.org/web/20041128195553/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_socrates58_archive.html#109434258447719839

2005: We had a similar discussion in CDF (Catholic Debate Forum) with no relation to White and Co.   https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/6378 (you have to follow the thread, but Barrett's "facts" come in too). (Yahoo Groups no longer exist).

2007:  Phil Vaz http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm (no longer exists)

White's original article, in 2007, to which my article was a response:  http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/ 

2007: Steve Ray responds to White's article:  http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2007/08/27/look-for-yourself-how-many-denominations/

2007: Scott Windsor responds to White on Locutus Webboard and while that link is no longer available, that same article was posted here in 2010:   http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html  Here (in 2007), I reference that (again, no longer available) article from Locutus:  https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/19192

2011:  Scott Windsor responds:  http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/12/white-on-vortex.html

2014:  Benjamin Baxter: http://www.catholiclane.com/the-bad-evangelist-club-33000-denominations/

2016:  Scott Eric Alt:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

2016:  Dave Armstrong, recalling his 2004 response to White on the subject:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/2/33000-denominations-thankful-james-white.html

Well, there are others, but this list should suffice to say that White has been shown, by several other Catholic apologists that a) the 33,000 number is not a lie; and b) many times before Alt's article from earlier this year. The bottom line is Barrett's numbers "denominate" by country, which is not the way most, if any, of us look at denominations.  Barrett says there are 239 Catholic "denominations" - but counts 234 countries - I'm not sure where he gets the other 5, but dividing it out - that's 1 denomination.  Protestants, on the other hand, are up to 144 - and ANY number greater than ONE is outside of God's Will for His Church - for HE desires that we be ONE, just as He and the Father are One (John 17:21).

7) Infallibility?  Well, he (like John Bugay) misrepresents or at best ridicules papal infallibility at a level indicating he really doesn't "get it" and since I just wrote a whole article on that (click here) I'll not repeat myself again just now.

8) Caller "Luke," whom he claims Catholic apologists are aggressively pursuing, calls in and basically takes up the rest of the show.  Well, THIS Catholic apologist is not actively pursuing Luke so I will not belabor those points here and now.  If Luke wishes to have a discussion with me, public or private, he can contact me.  Here's my email:  bigscott@a2z.org

If you would like to listen to or watch the Dividing Line webcast, in its entirety, on Youtube:

The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

After watching a program on EWTN, I decided to rewatch and take some notes to share: 

Symbolon:  Living the Faith

Holy Matrimony

In the Rite of Marriage, the priest asks the couple three questions that shed much light on what marriage is really all about…

1.       Have you come here freely?  And without reservation to give yourselves in marriage?

2.       Will honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?

3.       Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and His Church?

Marriage is meant to be a free choice of each person.  It is meant to be a total giving of ones self, holding nothing back.  Love which is meant to be faithful all throughout ones life.  And, it is meant to be a love which is fruitful, goes outward and willingly accepts children as a blessing from God.  But to live a marriage that is free, total and faithful is not easy; we need God’s help, we need His Grace in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Marriage is a Sacrament

                Marriage is a great mystery, a sacrament or sign of Christ’s love.  Eph. 5:32  Christ’s love, as well as “Married Love” is Free, Total, Faithful and Fruitful.  We can see these for signs in the marriage ceremony itself.  The priest asks the three questions of consent (see above) and these questions are not only present on the wedding day, be every day of married life.

                Why do we number marriage among the seven sacraments of the Church?  Whenever we take upon an office, and marriage is an office of a kind of service in the Church, God gives us a special grace in order to take on that office well and in this case it is to offer to love one other person in the same way that Christ loves His Church.  Each one is Christ to the other in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  It is extremely difficult, especially in this day and age, to live the life of matrimony – and Christ understands that and gives to us this special grace to live not in just a natural mode, but a supernatural mode which really makes us capable of loving others as Christ loves us.  Like in the Wedding at Cana, that couple did everything they thought was necessary – and still came up short, but Christ was there!  Jesus did not just give them the bare minimum to get by, but gave to them gallons and gallons of the best wine possible.  God does not give just enough to get by, but enough to make your marriage rich and powerful.

Marriage should reflect Christ’s union with the Church

                The first grace of matrimony is what we call the bond and this comes to be from the sacred promises the spouses make to one another.  As the word “bond” suggests, it binds the two together in a permanent relationship, like Christ to His Church.  So, strictly speaking, it isn’t that the Church doesn’t allow for divorce, but that the Church believes that divorce is impossible.  This bond that is put together by God cannot be broken by any human power and that is why we say when we marry, “till death do us part.”

Marriage is indissoluble – it’s a life-long commitment.

                Why can’t marriage just be a contract between a man and woman?  What would that promise sound like?  “I promise to stay with you in good times, in health and in wealth – until something better comes along.”  There would be nobody crying, there’s nothing beautiful about that, this isn’t what our hearts long for.  You would not be marrying a person, you would be marrying your own selfishness, you’re just marrying your own desires.  Instead of being a true covenant – it’s just an exchange of goods and services and you can just imagine the insecurity that would build in a relationship.  “Is my husband going to stay with me?”  “Do I need to stay thin enough for him to stay around?”  Then there’s the insecurity this would breed in the hearts of the children, “I don’t know if Dad is in this for the long run or not.”  In the end, it’s not a total gift of one’s self, it’s just a partial loan.  If marriage is supposed to be, as St. Paul said, a great sign of Christ’s love for the Church, then what does this say of Christ’s love for the Church?  You know, “I will be with you until the end of the age, or maybe I’ll stick around or maybe I won’t?”  This isn’t really the Vatican imposing her doctrines upon us, it is it is the longing of the human heart; every love longs to be eternal.  “I will love you, and no other,” this is what the human heart longs for, a love which reflects the divine.

Annulments

                You may have heard the term “annulments” in the Church, and it is a term which is greatly misunderstood.  It sounds as if the Church is making null that which would have otherwise been a valid marriage.  The proper term is “a declaration of nullity.”  This comes at the end of a long process in a court called a tribunal in which those engaged in the process of inquiry find that no marriage ever took place.  So, an annulment is not a Catholic divorce, it is a finding that no marriage ever took place in the first place and so there is nothing to divorce.

                Divorce is a legal term whereby a state or the government is dissolving a legitimate, valid, legal marriage.  An annulment is something completely different, it is saying that would appear to be a valid sacramental union between two people was not valid and there never was a real union to begin with.  How can that be?  How can two people walk into a church as singles, perform the ceremony and walk out as singles?  What could invalidate that union?  Well, let’s say the man is forcing the woman to marry him, or let’s say the woman is being significantly deceitful – like saying “I have a huge credit card debt” or “I have a boyfriend, and I don’t want to tell my potential husband because that could really ruin the wedding day.”  Obviously, these are going to be impediments to a valid sacramental union and so upon deep investigation and prayerful consideration, the Church will look back at that wedding day and if it was a valid marriage.  If it was, then the Church will say “What God has put together, let no man separate.”  These are the words of Christ, it is not the imposition of the Vatican upon us.  When Christ told the Apostles, “When you marry a wife, divorce her and marry someone else, you commit adultery.”  The disciples had a hard time with this!  They said, “If that’s the case, then it’s better not to get married.  If I can’t get divorced, then what’s the point of getting married in the first place?”  It speaks to the hardness of heart that Christ was trying to redeem in the first place.

                For making a marriage, consent is required.  One has to be free, not forced (feel fear) whether internally or externally.   Externally, one may desire to marry another person but if he or she is married to someone else, that is an external impediment to making that choice with this person.  The free choice to marry also has to be an informed choice.  Recall that marriage is to be free, total, faithful and fruitful.  So if, for some reason, one directly wills against what marriage is – perhaps one decides “I am not going to permit fruitfulness, that I don’t want to have children,” or perhaps one directly wills against the permanence of marriage in that “I’ll marry for a while, divorce and then marry someone else later,” in that case, you’re not really consenting to what marriage is and if you’re not consenting to what marriage really is – then you’re not really marrying.

Who can enter into a Sacramental Marriage?

      Two people who are:

• Baptised
• Opposite sex
• Free internally (they really choose this person to be their spouse)
• Free externally (not finding themselves in circumstances which make them unable to marry this particular person).

Full episodes available at:  http://www.symboloncatholic.org – though I did not find this one.  I watched this one on EWTN.

Another video, this one from Ascension Press: