Habemus Papam!

White smoke emerges from the chimney on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Wednesday, March 13, 2013. The white smoke indicates that the new pope has been elected. AP PHOTO/GREGORIO BORGIA

We have a pope!  White smoke has arisen from the Sistine Chapel!

New pope will be announced on TV later today.  Stay tuned!

(About an hour later....)

It's official!  Pope Francis I - from Argentina!

Habemus Papam!

The Real Issue About Roman Catholicism

This, according to James White in a video response to a blog article by C. Michael Patton, states is "the bottom line" which is "the Gospel" because, as he claims, 

...that Rome's gospel does not give anyone peace because it is not the biblical gospel, there is no finished work of Christ upon which true PEACE can be established between the believer and God.  That's the issue.  Are there all sorts of other issues?  You bet.  Is it a blaspheme against Christ, the elevation of Mary?  You bet!  False worship!  Is it not amazing that the only thing Rome can use its alleged authority on the past 200 years is to define beliefs on that were NEVER a part of the Church and never part of the primitive Church, but they're all about Mary?  Yeah, is that not a blight upon the faith?  Yes, it is.  Isn't Purgatory a (sic) horrific thing?  Yes, it is.  Isn't the infallibility of the pope an absurd attack upon God's revelation in Scripture?  Yes, it is.  But the fundamental issue is the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not possess and in fact anathematizes the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That's the issue.  So, I answer the question, presented by C. Michael Patton in his article, Are Roman Catholics Saved?  If a Roman Catholic is saved, they are saved in spite of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it.  But, the specific said, presented in the article, Do I believe that someone who is a committed MEMBER can be a true Christian?  If what you mean by that they are a knowl... (sic) that they understand, that they are a knowledgeable member of the Church, they understand what's teaching?  The ONLY answer to that question that I can offer while holding the New Testament in my hand, open to the Book of Galatians is, NO.  C. Michael Patton says, yes.  There's the difference.

Well, OK, let's take the side-topics first.
      1) The "elevation of Mary" White calls a "blaspheme."  After literally years, even decades now, of dealing with White, I can't understand how he can continue to present this falsehood!  IF Catholics had made the Blessed Virgin into a goddess, THEN he would have an argument of blaspheme.  Mary is not a goddess in Catholic theology, regardless of that which non-Catholics wish to impute to us.  Is she elevated?  YES!  As Scripture teaches, ALL generations shall call her blessed (pronounced "bless+ed").  In this scriptural teaching we see this not as merely a descriptive adjective, but a title - the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) fulfills this scriptural prophecy.  This certainly is not a "blaspheme."
      2) False worship, White also alleges.  Again, he is simply wrong.  Catholics do not worship the Blessed Virgin in any way like one would worship God.  Worship, simply stated, is honor.  We are instructed, in Scripture, to "honor your father and your mother," does that mean we "worship" our parents?  Well, again, not in the same sense we worship God!  Catholicism actually has different words to distinguish between the honor given to God, which is latria, and the honor given to the Saints, which is dulia - and the honor given to the Blessed Virgin, which is hyper-dulia.  In TRUE Catholic teaching, not that which is continually misrepresented by White, there is quite a distinction between the honor given Mary v. the honor given to God.  I grant you, White cannot see this distinction - but this only shows his blindness, even bigotry, toward the TRUTH.
      3) Is Purgatory an horrific thing?  Again, White exposes his willful ignorance of this subject.  I say willful ignorance because he and I have discussed this before and yet he continues to misrepresent and misalign the Catholic Church's teaching on Purgatory - which is scripturally based.  I realize White rejects our interpretation of Scripture on this matter, and even rejects part of Scripture itself on this matter - but his rejection does not equate to truth.  His rejection only posits that he has a different view of the Scriptures on this subject and does not negate that the Catholic Church bases her teaching in Scripture on this subject.
      4) The infallibility of the pope, White claims is "an absurd attack on God's revelation in Scripture."  Well, there are two things here which White rejects - a) the papacy itself and b) infallibility of the pope.  
     So, to begin, the papacy has ALWAYS been part of the Church and began with St. Peter, continued to St. Linus, then St. Cletus, then St. Clement, etc. and all the way to the current successor, Pope Benedict XVI who, as of this writing is now Bishop Emeritus of Rome and the "seat is empty" while we await the election of the next successor of St. Peter.  Even though we are in a period of sede vacante, Pope Benedict remains the most recent successor of St. Peter.  Rejection of the papacy is scripturally and historically unsound.
     Secondly, infallibility.  Again, this is based in Scripture.  In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus is speaking directly to, and solely to, St. Peter.  He tells St. Peter that whatsoever he binds or looses on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven.  Unless White contends that error could be bound or loosed in Heaven, THAT is infallibility!  The only absurdity here is in DENYING papal infallibility!

     Now, to the meat of this response, that which White calls "the bottom line," is the Gospel.  C. Michael Patton, while himself opposed to Catholicism, actually gets this right - but White's whole response is an attempt to discredit Patton.  One might say that by White's stance in this response that he doesn't even consider Patton to be a Christian.  Let us look at Patton's own words here (which White read at the beginning of his video response) and let the objective reader decide who is really preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who is preaching a false gospel.

Are Roman Catholics Saved? Short answer: I don’t know. However, don’t read to much into that. I don’t know if Protestants are Christian. I don’t know if many who go to my evangelical church are Christian. By “Christian” I mean someone who has truly been regenerated by God and is, as a result, a genuine disciple of Christ.

Of course, a better question that people are getting at is this: Do I believe that someone who is a committed member of the Roman Catholic Church can be a true Christian? To this I answer “yes.” Now, to be fair, I do not feel that the majority of Roman Catholics with whom I have come in contact are true believers. But, to be fairer, I don’t believe that the majority of Protestants (and Eastern Orthodox for that matter) with whom I have come in contact are true believers either! It is the problem of nominalism. Simply confessing to be a part of any Christian tradition does not mean that one truly embraces the ideals of said tradition. Christians are those who truly believe in who Christ is and do their best to follow him.

I think the most important question that has ever been asked in the history of the world is, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). The confession of Roman Catholicism, along with that of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, has been united concerning this for two thousand years: “Jesus Christ is the God-Man who died for our sins and rose from the grave.” Getting that right is no small thing. In fact, I would say that to have a true belief in such a creed requires the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholicism is to be commended, in my opinion, for being an ardent defender of the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, and the necessity of belief in such. Though there are many passages I could turn to, I think 1 John 4:2 says more than we often give it credit for. In fact, I would say that this is one of the most neglected passages which could be used to defend the deity of Christ. Notice:

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

Without getting too much into this (as it deserves its own blog post!), this passage teaches that a true belief that Christ is man and God is an indication that someone is “from God.” You may say that it only talks about his humanity (“in the flesh”) and not his deity. But I believe that implied within this is an assumption of Christ’s deity. Why? Because there would be no reason to deny that Christ had come in the flesh were it not assumed that he was God. I mean, how hard is it to deny that someone has come “in the flesh”, if they were only thought of as being human? It is a foregone conclusion that they have ”come in the flesh”! This passage makes no sense, unless it is assumed that a person believes that Christ is God. But the point that I want to make right now is that it is a big deal to believe in the humanity and deity of Christ. Think about how rare this really is outside of Christianity. Obviously, atheists do not confess this, but what about Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, and agnostics? They don’t have as an essential core to their confession (to say the least) that Christ is the God-man. The best of Catholics do. The best of Protestants do. The best of Eastern Orthodox do. It is because of this that I don’t easily dismiss Roman Catholics’ status before God. They get the “Who do you say that I am?” question right.

Not only this, but Catholics believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. They believe that we are sinners in need of grace.  Even though they lean toward inclusivism since Vatican II, they still believe that there is no other name by which we must be saved. Again, this is significant stuff which, if truly believed, I don’t see how an unregenerate person can confess without salvific implications. All of this can be said about Eastern Orthodoxy as well.

      Now I ask the reader - who is more in line with the preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, White or Patton?  What strikes me is that Patton does not put himself in God's Judgment Seat - and White does.  Patton allows for God to be the judge of Catholics, White does not.  That being said, White is a bit inconsistent on this, even within this video response!  While White's ultimate answer is "NO" - Catholics are not Christians, he does state, "If a Roman Catholic is saved, they are saved in spite of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it."  For White to be consistent he must give up this "if clause," otherwise he's really in agreement with Patton's article.

     So, what IS "the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"  It can be quite concisely summed up in John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

      Patton does well to repeat the question Jesus Himself asked of the Apostles, "Who do you say I am?"  To which St. Peter stands up and answers, "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God."  (Matthew 16:15-16)  It is this testimony which Jesus responds to, stating flesh and blood did not teach this to Peter, but the Holy Ghost did - and then, as mentioned above, states that whatsoever he, Peter, binds or looses on Earth shall be bound or loosed in Heaven.  Infallible authority is given to St. Peter, but I digress.  The point is that St. Peter confesses with his mouth who Jesus is - and as he was led to that truth by the Holy Ghost, so are Catholics.  The message of John 3:16 truly is the summary of the Gospel and the belief in the finished work of Jesus Christ.   The other (side) issues which White addressed are misconceptions on his part.   I have peace in understanding God's love for me and confidence that He will provide me with the ability to persevere in the One, True Faith and that He will not allow me to be tempted beyond that which I can handle.  I am quite at peace.

Below is the video response in its entirety, the section I transcribed was in the last 15 minutes or so.

Check This Out

Speaking of the Conclave watch, some may want to check this out:

http://popealarm.com

It will notify anyone who has signed up when the smoke goes up.

Conclave Watch - 2013

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 begins the conclave to elect Pope Benedict XVI's successor to be the current successor of St. Peter.  I have deliberately avoided the speculation on which cardinal will be elected, and especially the alleged "prophecy" of St. Malachy.  

Let us pray that God gives us the pope we need, and not necessarily the pope some people want.  I'm sure for some, that too can be one and the same - but the important factor is that the next Vicar of Christ is the right man for taking us beyond Pope Benedict XVI.  

Will the next pope continue the talks with Orthodoxy and SSPX?  If so, will these talks be successful?

Lord help us.  Lord guide us.

Amen.

Laetare Sunday - Fourth Sunday in Lent

Twice per year the vestments are rose or pink - and Laetare Sunday, the Fourth Sunday in Lent, is one of those dates in the liturgical year (the other is Gaudete Sunday, the Third Sunday in Advent).  It is called this because the Introit begins with:

Lætáre, Ierúsalem: et convéntum fácite, omnes qui dilígitis eam: gaudéte cum lætítia, qui in tristítia fuístis: ut exsultétis, et satiémini ab ubéribus consolatiónis vestræ.

Rejoice, O Jerusalem, and come together, all you who love her: rejoice with joy, you who have been in sorrow: that you may exult, and be filled from the breasts of your consolation.

It is a day of rejoicing, as Lent will soon be drawing to a conclusion in Passion Week, culminating in the resurrection of our Lord on Easter Sunday.

The sermon our priest today shared was truly amazing and I wish to share what I took from it here.  As most who follow here already know, I typically participate in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (Traditional Latin Mass) and the readings this week, especially the Gospel really hit home with another family member who has been absent from Mass for many years and came back today.  Now with that introduction one might think I was referring to the Novus Ordo, or Ordinary Rite - for the Gospel there was that of the Prodigal Son!  Well, that TOO is quite an appropriate Gospel for this day of return by our family member!  However, in the Extraordinary Rite the Gospel was John 6:1-15 - the feeding of the 5000.  Several times this week, this family member was meditating on the feeding of the 5000, he had no idea of what the Gospel would be at Mass!  He was having thoughts of how this feeding can be related to his own life and even that of his company.  He shared a time when he checked his bank account and only had $8.00 in it... somehow after deciding to pay the bills he HAD to pay that week, he went back to the account and found it had over $100 in it - AFTER paying all the bills!  Of course he relates that to the twelve baskets full of remnants after Jesus fed the 5000 with only 5 barley loaves and 2 fish.  He had other comparisons too - but again, that he was led to meditate on this passage this week and then find it at Mass moved him to tears on this, his prodigal return.

As I sat there listening to the sermon myself, I too was quite moved and heard an analogy I've not heard before.  The priest began with the discussion of the feeding of the 5000, but then said that this was just a prelude to what followed.  The people, after seeing this miracle sought to make Him king by force, but what did Jesus do?  He turned and fled to the mountains, alone.  

Some stay away from Mass because they claim they "get nothing from it."  To which Fr. Terra said, "If they believe that, then they are just not paying attention!"  The second part of John 6 puts forth the Eucharistic treatise that unless we eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Jesus Christ, we have "no life" in us.  This teaching was difficult for the disciples who grumbled and said, "this is a hard teaching, who can take it?"  Over that teaching, many turned and walked with the Lord no longer.  He repeated the command over and over again - how many times?  The answer is NINE TIMES!   Obviously He meant what He was saying!  We are given the re-presentation of Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross at EVERY Mass.  

Fr. Terra made it clear, it is not a representation, like a statue or a picture represents our Lord or a Saint, for those are just made of plaster, paint or some other substance.  The Eucharist, on the other hand is a re-presentation of the Cross.  It can be compared to if I were to leave the room, then come back in again, I am present again.  Now the Sacrifice is not offered again - it is made present again.  The Mystery of Faith is that through the Mass THE Sacrifice of Jesus defies space and time and becomes REALLY PRESENT on the altar.  No other church can offer you this!  No other church teaches this!  How can one be in the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ and claim, "I get nothing from it?"  

Then came the comparison I had not heard before. . .  in the first part of John 6, after Jesus had fed the 5000 they had their physical needs met - and they sought to make Him king - and He fled to the mountains, alone.  Too often we see, especially in non-Catholic churches, the attempt to fulfill the physical needs of those there, or the need to be entertained.  They attempt to make Him a worldly king again - and He flees from them.  Where God TRULY is, in His REAL PRESENCE is in the valid sacrifice of the Mass or Divine Liturgy, and NO WHERE ELSE!  Those who seek fulfillment outside the Mass are only filling their personal and physical desires - and not the spiritual.  Seek Him where He IS, and not in the entertainment factor of the preacher or the music or the fancy auditoriums which represent more of a stage show than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now again, if you really feel you "get nothing from the Mass," then "you're not paying attention!"  There is SO MUCH going on!  As the family member who just returned stated - if you pick up the missal and read even ONE PRAYER and meditate on it - you have come away from the Mass with more than you came in with - not to mention that THE Sacrifice of the Mass is THE Real Presence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - which is something you not only will not find, but cannot find at any Protestant gathering. 

Eschatology and Catholicism

I am writing this article for one of my sons who has been attending some non-Catholic Bible studies and he has questions regarding the Catholic position on Eschatology, and wondering why Catholics don't seem to be so big on the idea, while it seems of utmost importance to many Protestants.  So, where do I begin?  Let's start with explaining exactly what "Eschatology" is - since many Catholics a likely unfamiliar with the term.

Echatology:  "That branch of systematic theology which deals with the doctrines of the last things (ta eschata)." (Catholic Encyclopedia). 

The "End Times" movement didn't really gain much of a following until the late 1960's and 1970's, and especially got a boost from Hal Lindsey's book: The Late Great Planet Earth, first published in 1970.  Now that doesn't mean it did not exist prior to that, in fact the CE article I quoted from above was written in 1909.  Catholic understanding of eschatology is not something which sprang from the mid to late 20th century.  Even most Protestant denominations did not put much emphasis upon the "End Times" prophecies which are allegedly the thrust of the Book of Revelation - until the late 20th century.  Yes, there have been, throughout history (even before there was a "Protestant") those who taught millenarianism - but each and every time it was condemned by the Church.

What does the Church today teach in this regard?  Let us look to the Catechism of 1993:

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.  The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. 
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. 
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

The title of the Book of Revelation, or The Apocalypse, is merely taken from Jewish tradition of naming the book after the first word or words of the book.  The first words of this book are "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John" (Rev. 1:1, DRB).  In Greek, "revelation" is "apocalypse."  So it is not an indication of "end times" but rather of "things which must shortly come to pass."  So while being "prophetic" - it is not necessarily an "end times" prophecy.  The Book of Revelation is that which Jesus Christ was "revealing" to St. John. 

Bear in mind that in EVERY generation there is the spirit of antichrist.  There IS this great Beast which seeks to destroy your soul and the souls of as many as he can.  This is not something reserved for the Last Days, but has been happening in every age throughout history. 

What IS Important to Catholics Then?

The important factor for Catholics is the scriptural stance of ALWAYS being ready to stand before Christ.  We are not to be caught unprepared, as the five foolish virgins were in the parable told by Jesus in Matthew 25:1-13.  Note, all of the virgins are believers, but five of them do not come prepared and five of them do.  When the Bridegroom is delayed, the five foolish virgins realize they haven't enough oil.  When they are gone to get more oil (note, they are not unbelieving, they are just going to get more oil), the Bridegroom comes - and they are forbidden entry into the Wedding Feast.  So we, as Catholics, must ensure that we are always sacramentally prepared to face that End Time - when the Bridegroom comes.  If you are in need of confession - DON'T DELAY!  If you have not been to Mass recently, GET THERE!  Don't be all caught up in what some non-Catholics perceive as necessary belief when it comes to the End Times, just BE PREPARED at ALL TIMES and you will be OK.  I reiterate, it is not enough to just be a believer - the five foolish virgins were believers too, but were unprepared (the comparison could be that they ran off to go to Confession).  When Protestants teach that you don't have to DO anything - well, they are deceived and are attempting to bring you into that deception - as is the plan of "The Beast" to get control of as many souls as he can before people die, and/or prior to that "Last Day."  Jesus didn't provide us with the Sacraments so that we could just ignore them or get to them when convenient for us - but rather they are the means of grace by which we maintain our readiness for coming to Him either on OUR "last day" or THE "Last Day."   Which day will be YOUR "last day?"  Do you know?  Of course not!  What if tomorrow you were to be in an accident and lose your life in an instant, are you prepared to face the Bridegroom?

Friday Abstinence (Don't Forget It's Friday)

Abstinence and fasting are not the same thing.  In fact, I wrote to a well-known Catholic teacher's site recently about this very thing. They had a nice worksheet for Lent that included the most important things to do for lent:  Prayer, Almsgiving, and Fasting.  However, the worksheet said fasting was giving up meat on Fridays during Lent and giving up meat or something else on Fridays the rest of the year.  I wrote to her and said, "With all due respect fasting is when all food is given up on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday."  Actually, canon law prescribes one light meal and just enough food the rest of the day to keep one safe, but not enough to add up to another meal.  Anyway, she wrote me back the same day.  She said I was "technically" correct and that she did not want me to teach my class inaccurate information.  So, she changed the worksheet that very day to reflect the actual meaning of fasting and abstinence.

Abstinence in connection with Lent is abstaining from meat.  Abstinence (and fasting) from certain food actually predates the Church.  As far back as Genesis 2:16-17, God ordered the abstinence from a certain fruit from a certain tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The purpose was to lead the "moral head of the human race to recognize" his "dependence of creature on Creator."(1)  Adam's eventual transgression of this proscription led to more debt owed by the creature to the Creator.  Thus the necessity of penance was born.  Abstinence is not only a form of penance, but a work of charity.  Meat was chosen because it helped those who had more to sympathize with those who had less (a feeling of charity/love of neighbor).  When the poor could afford it or catch it, they ate fish.  Thus we identify with the poor by eating fish on Fridays.  It is a penitential opportunity that helps us remember our dependence on and gratefulness to God.

There are many examples of fast and abstinence in the Old Testament.  The practice had a long, respected tradition before the Church was founded by Jesus Christ.  Our Lenten practices honor and imitate His fast in the desert for 40 days, before His Passion.  There is much evidence that fasting and abstinence was an important part of early Church practices.  The practices we know today are part of the noble Tradition of the Church imitating and obeying our Lord Jesus Christ.

PS Sorry, I did not send out last Friday's reminder, but there was a better post on the blog anyway and I did not want to take away for it.



(1) "Abstinence," Catholic Encyclopedia.