On January 24, 1999, Pope John Paul II issued a "call to arms" for Catholics to aggressively confront the challenge of Protestant evangelism. Addressing more than a million people in Mexico City, the Holy Father urged Catholics to ignore the seductions of "fallacious and novel ideologies" and to spread the word of the Church.
Don't fail to respond to the Master who calls. Follow him to become, like the apostles, fishers of men. Make Christ's word reach those who still don't know him. Have the courage to bear witness to the gospel on the streets and in the town squares, in the valleys and mountains of this nation.
The Catholic Church today is being challenged vigorously by non-Catholic evangelizers. Unfortunately, many Catholics feel ill-prepared to defend their faith in the face of these attacks. We hope this booklet will give Catholics the basic tools to effectively answer the challenges of the many religious groups that come knocking on our doors and to correct some of the misconceptions non-Catholics have about the Catholic Church and its teachings.
This sacred Synod earnestly exhorts laymen, each according to his natural gifts and learning, to be more diligent in doing their part to explain and defend Christian principles.
"Apologetics" simply means giving a reasoned explanation for your faith. A Catholic apologist charitably explains and defends Catholic doctrine using Scripture, history, and common sense. Apologetics fulfills the command of St. Peter: 1 Pet 3:15-16: Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence. A beginning apologist must remember the following points:
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Nearly all of the more than 33,000 different Protestant denominations believe Christ is only present symbolically in the Eucharist.
Because the Eucharist is such an important doctrine, and because it divides us from nearly all Protestants, we must insist on discussing the Eucharist in any apologetic dialogue, and we must be prepared to discuss it well.
In order to defend the biblical basis for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, know the following passages: all of John 6 Lk 22:17-20 1 Cor 10:14-17 Mk 14:22-24 Lk 24:30-35 1 Cor 11:23-29 Mt 26:26-28
1 World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxford University Press counts 33,830 denominations within Christianity.
Be able to "walk" a non-Catholic step by step through John 6. Begin by reading Jn 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12, which describe Jesus speaking about food in a symbolic or figurative way. The disciples interpret Him to mean real food. Note how Jesus shows them in plain, unmistakable language that He is only speaking figuratively.
Contrast this with Jn 6:51. Jesus says we must eat His flesh in order to have life. In Jn 6:52, the Jews interpret Him literally. Jesus then repeats again and again (verses 53-56)--in the clearest possible language - that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. Take special note of verse 55: "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" - this is not the language of symbolism.
Protestants often cite John 6:35: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." They claim that when Jesus calls Himself the "bread of life" He is simply saying that if we believe in Him, He will nourish us spiritually, just as bread nourishes us physically. Protestants claim that we "eat" and "drink" Jesus, our spiritual food, by coming to and believing in Him.
However, we must read the rest of this Eucharistic discourse, especially verses 48-58, where Jesus tells us exactly what He means by calling Himself "bread." The bread Jesus is speaking of is not merely a symbol for spiritual nourishment. Jesus tells us plainly that the bread is His own flesh (verse 51), which we must eat in order to have eternal life. When Jesus explains that the bread of life is literally His flesh, we must accept His clear words.
Many Protestants claim that in John 6:60-70, Jesus explains that He was only speaking symbolically in the previous verses. They focus on verse 63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Be prepared to deal with this objection as follows:
Now read the other Eucharistic Bible passages. Again and again the biblical language indicates the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Note the strong language of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."
In the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute and assault him. See Ps 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2 Sam 23:l5-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if Jesus were only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as Protestants say, then what He really meant was "whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life." This, of course, makes nonsense of the passage.
Consider Christ's use of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Bread and wine are not normal or natural symbols of flesh and blood. Yet in all four Last Supper accounts (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25) Jesus tells us plainly that "this is my body" and "this is my blood." Never is there a hint that He is speaking symbolically. Either the symbols would have been clearly explained if He were speaking symbolically (which is not the case) or Jesus spoke literally (which is the case).
Occasionally, a non-Catholic will insist that we Catholics, because of our belief about the Eucharist, engage in cannibalism and violate the biblical prohibition on the drinking of blood. It was exactly this misunderstanding that led the unbelieving Jews and disciples in John 6 to reject Jesus when He spoke about the need to eat His body and drink His blood. The believing disciples were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper. Jesus revealed to them that they would receive His body and blood in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, not in the bloody, cannibalistic way the unbelievers had imagined.
All the early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence (see Appendix 1, page 8). Until the Reformation, all Christianity accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even Martin Luther affirmed the doctrine, and confirmed that the early Church Fathers unanimously taught the Real Presence: of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, "It is simply bread and wine," or "Christ's body and blood are not present." Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, "It is simply bread," or "Not that the body of Christ is physically present," or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they Luther's Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1961) Volume 37, 54. all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side.
Note that all the Churches that broke away hundreds of years before the Reformation (Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) still believe in the Real Presence.
Finally, mention some of the great Eucharistic miracles that God has given us to confirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Joan Cruz's Eucharistic Miracles' is an excellent resource for this purpose. Many of these miracles have been scientifically verified.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE EUCHARIST
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and contemporary of the Apostle John, wrote (around AD 110) concerning certain heretics:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.'
In another letter St. Ignatius wrote,
I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ ... and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible.'
St. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology to the emperor at Rome (around AD 150):
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true.... For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus.
St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and a pupil of St. Polycarp who had been taught by St. John the Apostle, wrote (around AD 195):
He [Jesus] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture given in the middle of the fourth century (AD 350), said:
Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Septuagint contains 46 books. The Hebrew canon contains only 39. Why are there seven fewer books in the Hebrew canon?
It is contradictory for Protestants to accept the Bible and yet reject the authority of the Catholic Church that preserved it for them.
Thoughtful Christians realize that if God has revealed Himself to man, we must be able to know with assurance where that revelation can be found. Since we are staking our salvation on the truth of God's word, we need to know exactly and infallibly which books contain divine truth. Otherwise, we might look to the words of men for the Word of God. Thus, we need an authoritative list (canon) of the inspired books of the Bible. "Canon" means a measuring standard. The canon of Scripture refers to the standard, or official list of inspired books that make up the Bible.
The Old Testament (OT)
Why do Catholic and Protestant Bibles have a different number of books in the OT?
The Protestant OT is based on the Hebrew canon used by Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine. The Catholic OT is based on the Greek canon used by Greek-speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine.
The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library in the ancient world. During the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars - according to tradition - six from each of the twelve tribes. From this Alexandrian translation (completed between 250-125 BC) we get the term "Septuagint," Latin for 70 (LXX), the number of translators.
This Greek translation of the OT was very popular because Greek was the common language of the entire Mediterranean world by the time of Christ. Hebrew was a dying language (Jews in Palestine usually spoke Aramaic), and so it is not surprising that the Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus and the New Testament writers. The great majority of the OT quotations found in the NT are from the Septuagint. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno, for example, list 340 places where the NT cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Hebrew canon rather than the Septuagint.'1 By this count, the NT writers quote from the Septuagint over 90% of the time. Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek.
The Hebrew canon continued to be debated by Jewish rabbinical schools into the third century. 12 Eventually, however, rabbinic Judaism rejected seven books from the Hebrew canon found in the Septuagint - Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees (as well as portions of Daniel and Esther) - chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint supposedly translated into Greek.'
Since the Christian Church had used the Septuagint from the beginning, it simply ignored the decisions of later rabbinic Judaism and continued to use the Septuagint. When the Church officially determined which books comprise the canon of the Bible (Councils of Hippo, AD 393, and Carthage, AD 397), it approved the 46 books of the Septuagint as the canon for the OT. For sixteen centuries the Christian OT was a matter of uncontested faith. Each of the seven rejected books is quoted by early Church Fathers as "Scripture" or as "inspired," right along with the undisputed books. 14
In 1529, Martin Luther proposed to adopt the 39-book canon used by rabbinic Judaism as the 01 canon. Luther justified his decision to delete seven books from the OT by appealing to St. Jerome who, around AD 400, had expressed concerns that these Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, 15 making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds. The principle reason Luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the Christian OT is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).
But here is the real question: Which OT would you rather use - the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christians?
If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits the seven books, you follow non-Christian rabbis and Martin Luther - a man who wanted to throw out even more books (James, Esther, Revelation), and who deliberately added the word "alone" to Sacred Scripture in his German translation of Romans 3:28.
The New Testament (NT)
The first word of the NT was written about AD 50 (1 Thess), the last word between AD 90-100 (Rev), for a total of 27 books, all of which are accepted as canonical and inspired by Catholics and Protestants alike. The question is, who determined the NT canon of inspired books? The Bible didn't fall from heaven pre-printed, so where did we get it? How do we know we can trust every book?
Various bishops developed lists of inspired books:
The canon of the Bible was officially determined in the late fourth century by Catholic councils and Catholic popes. Until the canon was decided, there was much debate. Some were of the opinion that certain canonical books - Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter - were not inspired, while others held that certain noncanonical books - Shepherd of Hermas, Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas and Clement - were inspired. The formal Church decision settled the matter for the next 1100 years. Not until the Reformation was there any more debate about the contents of the Bible.
Historically, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belong to the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is inspired. Apart from the Church, we simply have no way of knowing either truth.
Martin Luther himself admits that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church:
We concede - as we must - that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God's Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? 16
Luther's statement supports our argument that without the decisions of the Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired.
St. Augustine puts it bluntly:
I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so. 17
St. Augustine recognizes that the only way to know for sure which books are inspired is to accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
CRUCIAL POINTS
(1) Historically
The Bible is a Catholic book. The New Testament was written, copied, and collected by Catholic Christians. The official canon of the books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Thus it is from the Catholic Church that the Protestants have a Bible at all.
(2) Logically
The Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God, must have the infallible authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, apart from the declarations of the Catholic Church, we have absolutely no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine Word of God.
To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for Protestants to accept the Bible and yet reject the authority of the Catholic Church that gave it to them.
Logically, Protestants should not quote the Bible as authoritative, for they have no way of determining which books are inspired - unless, of course, they accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
11 Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.' A Complete Survey (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983) xxv-xxxii. 12 Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996) 272-276. 13 The rabbinic Jews used four criteria to determine their canon. They accepted only those books which were: (1) written in Hebrew; (2) in conformity with the Torah; (3) older than the time of Ezra (c. 400 BC); and (4) written in Palestine. 14 Among these Fathers are Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, and Cyprian. For a collection of patristic quotations from each of the disputed books, see "The Fathers Know Best: Old Testa ment Canon" in the October 1993 issue of This Rock magazine (Volume 4, No. 10) 25-27. 15 New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1975) 22. Dead Sea Scroll expert James C. VanderKam says Hebrew versions of Tobit, Sirach, and Psalm 151 (found only in the Septuagint) were discovered at Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994) 34-36. l6 Luther's Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 196 1) Volume 24, 304. 17 Against the Letter of Mani, 5, 6; Jurgens, Volume 3, #1581.
Almost all Protestants follow the doctrine of sola scriptura. This doctrine claims that the Bible alone is the authority in matters of faith. Many evangelizers will begin by saying: "Let's agree that the Bible is the sole rule of faith." A Catholic must answer with a firm, "NO." They are really asking you to reject Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church.
We must show them that Christ left a Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name until the end of time. To reject that authority is to reject Christ and His Gospel. We Catholics accept the Bible as an authority in matters of faith because it is God's inspired Word. However, we cannot accept it as the only rule of faith for the following reasons.
It goes against the BIBLE. Scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority to govern in His name (Mt 16:1320, 18:18; Lk 10:16). Christ promised that this Church would last until the end of time (Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16). The Bible also tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6).
The doctrine ofsola scritura is notfound in Scripture. In fact, the Bible tells us that we need more than just the Bible alone. The Bible confirms that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in Scripture (John 21:25) and that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25). In 2 Pet 3:15-16, we are warned that Sacred Scripture can be very difficult to interpret, which strongly implies the need for an authoritative interpreter. Finally, 1 Tim 3:15 reassures us that the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
It goes against HISTORY. The history of the Bible attests that it was the Church exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. We need the authority of the Church to tell us what belongs in the Bible (1 Tim 3:15).
It goes against COMMONSENSE. Any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret it. Otherwise, chaos reigns as everyone interprets the document according to his own personal whim.
For example, the Founding Fathers of this country put together a magnificent document to be authoritative in determining how this country would be governed: the U.S. Constitution. They also established a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret the Constitution: the Supreme Court.
The Founding Fathers knew that without a living authority the Constitution would lead to endless divisions as every one acted as his own interpreter. God certainly has more wisdom than the founders of this country. He would never have left a written document to be the only rule of faith without a living authority to guard and officially interpret it.
The splintering of Christianity into over 33,000 denominations is the direct fruit of the Bible-alone doctrine. This idea does not come from God and was unheard of for 1500 years before the Reformation.
Protestants reject apostolic succession in general and the teaching authority of the bishop of Rome in particular. You should focus on papal authority because it has strong support in Scripture, and it can be easily traced historically.
Scripture
In the OT, when God established His Covenant with the nation of Israel, He provided for a living, continuing authority in the Mosaic priesthood (see 2 Chr 19:11; Mal 2:7.) This authority did not end when the OT Scripture was written; rather, it continued as the safeguard and authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture.
When Christ established His Church, the New Israel, He set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name. This living authority is called "Apostolic" because it began with the twelve Apostles and continued with their successors.
It was this Apostolic authority that would preserve and authentically interpret the revelation of Jesus Christ. This same Apostolic authority determined the canon of the Bible, and will preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ in all their fullness, and uncorrupted from error, until the end of time.
Among the twelve Apostles, St. Peter is clearly the head. Know Matthew 16:13-19 well:
And I tell you, you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (verses 18-19).
Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter, which mean "rock."" Our Lord says this rock will be God's way of preserving the Church from corruption until the end of time. Our Lord knew St. Peter would be dead by AD 70. Therefore Christ must have intended the office of Peter to last until the end of time. St. Peter is given the "keys to the kingdom of heaven."9 This is an awesome gift. To nobody else does Christ give this ruling power. Ask non-Catholics to reflect on this unique privilege instead of trying, by verbal acrobatics, to explain away the title "Peter."
Ask them: Why would Jesus give this tremendous authority to St. Peter and not intend for it to be passed on? If the early Christians needed an authoritative leader, later Christians would need tone even more. Remember, many of the early Chris- tians heard the Gospel from Christ Himself and knew the Apostles personally. After all the Apostles died, the Church would have even greater need of the power of the keys when enemies would try to corrupt the teachings of Christ.
Although the Apostles as a group were all given the power "to bind and to loose" in Mt 18:18, St. Peter received this power individually when he was given the "keys." Point out that Jesus would not have guaranteed to back up the doctrinal teachings of St. Peter and his successors unless He was also going to protect each from teaching false doctrine in his official capacity as Shepherd of the Church.
Know Lk 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17 as well. In the passage from St. Luke, Jesus prays that Peter's faith would not fail; Peter in turn would strengthen the other disciples. In the passage from St. John, Jesus clearly makes Peter the shepherd of His Church. So St. Peter is the rock on which Christ builds His Church. He is given the "keys of the Kingdom;" and he is made shepherd of Christ's flock: solid biblical evidence that Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope. The popes are Christ's vicars, the visible and earthly heads of Christ's Church while Christ is the invisible and supreme head.
Be familiar with Acts 15. This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the
Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter's decision final.
Some Protestants claim Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter, was the head of the Church. Since James the Less (not James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they conclude that James must be the head of the Church.
We must remind Protestants to read the Gospels, where St. Peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the Apostles, whereas St. James the Less is not. Ask them to read the first twelve chapters of Acts, which describe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter (except 6 and 7, which describe Stephen's martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership position while St. James appears only briefly, and never in a leadership role .21 In Galatians 1:18-19, we are told that Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically to confer with Peter. He stayed with Peter 15 days. In contrast, Paul visited James only briefly during this time.
At the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it was St. Peter's statements that settled the serious doctrinal dispute that was the reason for the council. As we saw earlier, St. Peter's statements silenced the assembly of presbyters and the Apostles (including St. James).
We know from Church history that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and, as Acts 21:15-25 describes, he was concerned for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt their ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts. This background explains why St. James made the concluding remarks at the council and asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish practices. Protestants are grasping at straws when they claim that Acts 15 proves that James, instead of Peter, was the head of the Church.
Protestants will also cite 1 Peter 5:1 to claim that Peter was not the head of the Church. They note that Peter, in addressing some elders (Church leaders), calls himself a fellow elder. They therefore conclude that Peter had no more authority than any other elder. But this is just like the President of the United States saying, "My fellow Americans." This would certainly not indicate that the President has no more authority than an ordinary citizen.
As an Apostle, St. Peter certainly considers his authority to be greater than that of an ordinary elder. After all, St. Peter goes on to admonish these "fellow elders" (1 Pet 5:2-4) as one having authority over them. In calling them fellow elders, St. Peter is simply acknowledging the obvious: they too are Church leaders. For Protestants to insist that Peter, as an Apostle, had no greater authority than an ordinary elder, shows how little they appreciate what Scripture says about the great office of Apostle.
Many Protestants quote Gal 2:11-14 as well, attempting to show that Peter was not infallible 22 and that Paul did not consider him the head of the Church. This position is not supportable. If they think Peter was not infallible, why do they accept his two letters as inspired and, therefore, infallible? We must accept that all the Apostles were infallible. After the Apostles, the popes individually and the bishops as a group in union with the pope, are infallible.
St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different from St. Catherine of Siena correcting weak popes in the Middle Ages. There was no doctrine involved. St. Peter himself had settled the doctrinal point at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem once St. Peter spoke.
HISTORY
The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. Around A1 80, the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and 'much closer to Corinth than was Rome.
St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome up to his time.24 St. Irenaeus presents this teaching as something taken for granted by orthodox Christians.
For 250 years, the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred - the Romans certainly knew who the head of the Church was!
A Roman Emperor's greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the emperor Decius (AD 249-251), one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian Church, made the following remark: "I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome."25 Decius said this after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250.
REASON
Finally, appeal to reason. Ask this question. Suppose that the owner of a company had called all the employees together and announced that he was going to be gone for a while. During his absence, he was going to give the keys of the company to his vice-president, Frank, and that whatever Frank commanded would be backed by him. Would you have any doubt that Frank was going to be in charge of the company while the boss was away? Of course not! Then why can't Protestants accept that this is exactly what is described in Mt 16:13-19?
Many Protestants think Catholics give too much honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary. They reject the four defined doctrines on Our Lady: (1) her Divine Maternity (that she is the Mother of God); (2) her Perpetual Virginity (that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life); (3) her Bodily Assumption; and (4) her Immaculate Conception.
Protestants often want to discuss Marian beliefs immediately. Insist on starting with more basic differences: Apostolic authority, the Eucharist, or the "Bible alone" idea. However, you should be prepared to eventually discuss Marian doctrines.
Before beginning a discussion on the four major doctrines, ask Protestants why they think it is so wrong to honor the mother of our Savior. Remind them that God honored her above all creatures by making her the mother of His Son. In honoring Mary, the Catholic Church is following the example of God Himself. Mary's special privileges were given to her by God, not men.
Read Luke 1:26-56. Note how the Archangel Gabriel shows Mary great honor in his greeting. See how Elizabeth, "filled with the Holy Spirit," calls Mary blessed twice in just four short verses. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth gives Our Lady great honor with the words, "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
In verse 48, Our Lady prophesies that all generations will call her blessed. Ask Protestants why they don't call her Blessed Virgin Mary as Catholics do. They call her Mary or perhaps Virgin Mary, but almosi never Blessed Virgin Mary. Let them sec that it is Catholics who are being biblical here and not Protestants.
Once you have established the biblical basis for giving special honor to Our Lady you can begin discussing the four major Marian doctrines. Don't try to deal with all four doctrines at once; this takes a lot of time and can involve many difficulties and side issues.
Most Protestants are shocked to learn thai although the founders of Protestantism rejected many Catholic doctrines, they insisted on honoring Mary as Mother of God and Ever-Virgin (see Appendix 2, page 24).
DOCTRINAL BASIS
All Christians believe that Jesus was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They also believe that although Jesus has two natures (one divine and one human), He is one Divine Person. Since this one person was born of Mary, she truly is the Mother of the one Divine Person.: in short, the Mother of God.
If a person denies that Mary is the Mother of God, whether he realizes it or not, he is denying the Incarnation. He is saying either that Jesus is not God, or that Jesus is two persons one human and one divine. Protestants ask: "How can Mary, a creature, be the mother of God the Creator?" We answer that when the eternal Son of God became man, He assumed a human nature, which made it possible for Him to be born of a woman just as we were.
BIBLICAL BASIS
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan.. "26 (St. Ignatius, AD 110).
"The Virgin Mary, ... being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God"27 (St. Irenaeus, AD 180-199).
Remind Protestants that if they look at Church history they will find that Mary's title of Mother of God was not rejected until AD 429. In that year, a bishop named Nestorius promoted the heresy that Jesus was two distinct persons , and that Mary was only the mother of the human person. In AD 431, the Council of Ephesus condemned this heresy. It did not surface again in Christianity until after the Reformation. Notice how a correct belief about Mary leads to a correct belief about Jesus.
In regard to the other three Marian doctrines, biblical passages in support of them are not explicit28 and we have to rely on Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.
Assumption. The doctrine doesn't tell us if Mary died; it merely states that after the completion of her life, she was taken body and soul into heaven. Note that Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, just as the righteous will be at the end of time (see Gn 5:24; 2 Kg 2:11; 1 Thess 4:17; Heb 11:5). Why is it hard to believe that God gave His mother this privilege? No city ever claimed her body. There is no record of her relics or remains anywhere.
Immaculate Conception. The doctrine doesn't say that Mary didn't need a savior. Like all the OT saints, Mary was saved through the anticipated merits of Jesus. Mary's salvation was simply more perfect. By God's grace, she was preserved from sin at her conception. In contrast, we are cleansed from sin after our birth.
Perpetual Virginity. Mary's perpetual virginity was not challenged the early Church until the time of St. Jerome (around AD 400). This doctrine was not rejected by the founders of Protestantism. Note that "brothers" in the Bible can also mean "relatives." If Jesus had blood brothers, He would not have entrusted Mary to John, but one of them. Two so-called "brothers" of Jesus (Mt 13:55) James and Joseph are identified as sons of another Mary, the wife Clopas (compare Mt 27:56 and Jn 19:25).
1. Why do Catholics adore Mary, who is just a human being?
Catholics do not adore Mary; we venerate and honor her. Why? The angel calls her "full of grace," and one who has "found favor with God" (Lk 1:28, 30). Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit calls her "blessed are you among women" (verse 42), Mary herself declares that "all generations will call me blessed" (verse 48). Catholics, following Scripture, always call her blessed. Do you?
2. Why do Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God"? Wouldn't this mean Mary existed before God, or that she is older than God?
We call Mary Mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus, who is God. We follow the Spirit-filled Elizabeth who declared in Luke 1:43: "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Jesus is true God and true man: two natures in one undivided Person. By being the Mother of Jesus, Mary is also the Mother of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Mary did not give birth merely to a human nature, but to a person, the Son of God who took from her flesh a pure human nature. Lk 1:35: "the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." Gal 4:4: "God sent forth His Son, born of woman." If Jesus is truly God-made-man, then Mary is truly the Mother of God. Obviously, Mary did not exist before God. Jesus is the Son ofGod from all eternity, who became also the Son of Mary in time.
3. Why do Catholics believe Mary was immaculately conceived? Romans 3:23 says that "ALL HAVE SINNED and are deprived of the glory of God "
Luke writes that Mary is full of grace, highly favored. Lk 1:37: "For with God nothing will be impossible." She is the "woman" of Gen 3:15 whose enmity with Satan and sin is absolute. She is the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:11-21) made to hold the living Word of God: a holy tabernacle made not of the purest gold, but of the purest flesh. St. Paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to Jews and Gentiles alike. Babies have not sinned; Adam and Eve before the fall had not sinned; Jesus never sinned. These are some exceptions that fall outside St. Paul's condemnation. Mary is another.
4. If Mary never sinned, she doesn't need a Savior. So why does Mary say in Luke 1:4 7: "my spirit rejoices in God MY SAVIOR."
Mary was saved by the merits of Christ, just as we are. The difference between Mary and other Christians is that her salvation from sin was more perfect. While we are freed from original sin at our baptism, Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception. But Jesus is the Savior in both cases.
5. Why do Catholics believe that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin? Matt. 13:55-56 says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Catholics are not alone in this belief. Protestant Reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also defended
Mary's perpetual virginity. The Hebrew and Aramaic languages spoken by Christ and His disciples do not have separate words for "brother," "cousin," or "near-relative." For example, in the original Hebrew, Lot is called Abraham's "brother" (Gen 14:14). Yet we know that Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:27). The Jews used the word "brother" for all kinds of relationships, not just for "blood-brothers" (see 1 Cor 15:6, Mt 23:8, Acts 7:23).
6. Why do Catholics believe that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven? Scripture does not record the Assumption of Mary, so we depend on Apostolic Tradition for our belief. However, the Assumption is not anti-scriptural. In fact, Scripture gives every indication that such a thing could occur. Consider the unusual ends of certain righteous people: Enoch was taken to heaven without dying (Heb 11:5); and Elijah was whisked into heaven by a fiery chariot (2 King 2:11). Matthew 27:52 suggests a bodily assumption before the Second Coming, and many Protestants believe in the "rapture" based on 1 Thess 4:17 and 1 Cor 15:52. Mary is simply the first to be "raptured."
7. Why did the Catholic Church invent the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the Bodily Assumption in 1950?
The Catholic Church officially defined the doctrines in 1854 and 1950, respectively. She did not "invent" them at that time, any more than she "invented" the doctrine of the Trinity when she officially defined it in 325, or "invented" the New Testament when she officially determined the canon in 393 and 397. The Catholic Church was merely codifying a belief which always existed in the Church, and was expressed in th writings of the early Church Fathers.
8. Are Catholics required to believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary?
Yes. All Catholics are required to believ everything that Christ's Church teaches Officially defined doctrines are calle dogmas, which every Catholic must accept in order to be a faithful Catholic. When these two doctrines were infallibly defined, the became binding dogmas of faith.
9. Are Catholics required to believe in thd Church-approved apparitions of Mary, such as Fatima and Lourdes?
No. Catholics have the assurance of th Church that these revelations are orthodo and worthy of belief, but they are nc doctrine or an addition to public revelatio (which ended with the death of the la Apostle). Therefore a Catholic is free t accept or reject these officially approve apparitions.
10. Why do Catholics pray to Mary? 1 Tim 2:5 says "there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Catholics ask for Mary's intercession for th same reason that we ask for a fello Christian's intercession: "the prayer of righteous man has great power in its effects (James 5:16). Because Jesus is the on mediator between earth and heaven, intercede for one another as members ( Christ's body. If fellow saints praying for on earth do not destroy Christ's role as tF one mediator, neither do glorified saini praying for us in heaven. Mary is the greate saint. Why wouldn't we seek her powerful intercession?
11. Why do Catholics call Mary "Blessed" and honor her with prayers and devotions, like the Rosary?
Scripture calls her "blessed" and promises that all generations will invoke her by that title (see question 1). We honor Mary because of her great privileges: she was conceived without sin, became the mother of God while remaining a virgin, and was assumed bodily into heaven. There she reigns as queen of heaven and earth, mother of the Church, God's greatest creature, and mankind's greatest boast. We honor her because Jesus honored her�perfectly obeying the fourth commandment�and we are called to imitate Jesus.
12. Is the "Hail Mary" scriptural?
Yes, the first part of the prayer is taken almost word-for-word from Scripture.
"Hail, full of grace, the lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28).
"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42) - Jesus.
The second part is based on Scripture.
Holy Mary - "you have found favor with God" (Luke 1:30)
Mother of God - "mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43)
Pray for us sinners - (as we Christians pray for one another)
Now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
13. Isn't the Rosary a kind of repetitious prayer condemned by Jesus in Mt 6:7?
In Mt 6:7, Jesus is not condemning all repeated prayers. He says, "do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words" (NAB). Jesus is teaching Christians that we are not to pray with the pagan attitude that the more we repeat a prayer the more likely we are to be heard (see 1 Kings 18:25-29 for an example of this pagan mentality).
A Christian who thinks he needs to repeat a prayer in order to be heard in heaven has a problem with faith. This is the error Jesus is correcting. Notice that Jesus repeats the same prayer three times in the Garden of Gethsemani (Mt 26:44). The publican who humbly repeated, "God, be merciful to me a sinner" (Lk 18:13) went home justified. The four living creatures in heaven repeat day and night, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come" (Rev 4:8). These verses show that prayer repeated with the proper attitude is very pleasing to God. The Rosary, recited devoutly, fulfills part of the biblical exhortation to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17).
14. Aren't Catholics superstitious for believing that medals of Mary and relics of saints can perform miracles?
The Catholic Church teaches that only God can perform a true miracle. But we also know that God can act either directly or through secondary agents, like people. God sometimes even performs miracles through inanimate objects in order to show the intercessory power of a particular saint. A man came back to life when he contacted the bones of the holy prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:20-21). God performed miraculous cures through Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15-16) and through handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul (Acts 19:11-12), showing the great intercessory power of St. Peter and St. Paul. Medals of Our Lady and relics of saints have no power to cause miracles in themselves. Rather, God performs miracles through these medals and relics to show the great intercessory power of Mary and the saints.
Virtually all Protestants deny that Christ gave His disciples the power to forgive sins. To discuss the sacrament of confession well, you need to know Jn 20:19-23.
When Jesus bestowed on the disciples the power to forgive sins, He did it on Easter Sunday. This is significant because of the connection of the Resurrection with spiritual life. Notice that He conferred this power by breathing on the Apostles. The only other time that God breathed on anyone was when He breathed life into the first human being (Gn 2:7). Ask Protestants to think about these powerful symbols and how they signify an awesome life-giving power given to the disciples. Note that Jesus gave the disciples the authority to forgive, and not to forgive. This means a priest has to hear the sins in order to know whether to forgive them or hold them bound.
Protestants say they confess their sins to God while Catholics confess their sins only to priests. Wrong. Catholics always confess their sins to God. They do it directly as well as through His ministers because that is what God requires, as clearly taught in Scripture.
Know 2 Cor 5:17-20. St. Paul explains how the Apostles are ambassadors of Christ's work of reconciliation. What does this mean but that they share in the ministry of Christ and forgive sins in His name? Also know James 5:13-16. James makes clear that the sins of the sick are forgiven in this sacrament of anointing. He specifies that the presbyters (priests) must be called. They obviously had a power the ordinary Christian did not: the power to forgive sins. Otherwise, why didn't James simply ask ordinary, fellow Christians to pray over the sick as is the case in numerous other passages?
Many Protestants believe that sins are wiped away in Baptism. This means they believe that their ministers are used by God as His instruments in the forgiveness of sins through a sacrament, Baptism, which they administer. Catholics believe that the priest is used by God as His instrument for the forgiveness of sins in three sacraments: Confession, Anointing, and Baptism. The disagreement here is not in principle. It is true that most Fundamentalists do not believe that sins are wiped away through Baptism. However, we can point out that they all believe that God can use their ministers as instruments in His physical healing. Why wouldn't God do the same with spiritual healing, which is more important?
Finally, return to John 20:21: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." The Apostles are to continue the mission of Christ. The essence of that mission is the forgiveness of sins. Jesus knows our human nature. He provided sacramental confession to give us several important gifts: humility, the certainty of forgiveness, spiritual direction, and help to overcome self-deception and rationalization in matters of sin.
Clearly, Christ gave His disciples the power to forgive sin. This power was intended to be passed on, since Christ knew people would sin until the end of time. Early Church history confirms that Christians believed this power was passed on to the Apostles' successors (see Jurgens: #493, #553, #602, #637, and #855a). Catholics always confess their sins to God.
In the past years, the Catholic Church has been hit with one scandal after another. Many of these crimes involve priests in acts of pedophilia. This is a horrific sin, and in priests it is truly an abomination. As a Catholic, you can be sure that you will be asked questions about this. How do you respond?
Acknowledge the situation honestly. Don't try to explain it away. Tell people that scandals have badly wounded the Church. Also, admit that many mistakes have been made by our Church leaders in handling this issue. Now they are dealing with this problem in a forthright way. In some cases, the Vatican is directly intervening.
Many Protestants will try to use these scandals to attack celibacy, and to challenge the claim that the Catholic Church is the true Church. You must be prepared to respond to both arguments.
CELIBACY
Celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia or other sex scandals involving priests. Most pedophiles are married men. We are seeing pedophilia in major institutions everywhere, not just in the Catholic Church. Remind Protestants that in recent years we had one television evangelist after another involved in sex scandals, some involving perverted sex. All of these televangelists were married. Nobody blamed these scandals on the institution of marriage! Nobody demanded that Protestant ministers renounce marriage.
People do not get involved in sex scandals because they are married or celibate. They commit these sins because they fail God as individuals. We don't judge marriage by those who break their marriage vows. Neither should we judge celibacy by those who break their celibacy vows. Marriage and celibacy should both be judged by those who are faithful to their vows.
Remember, about half of all marriages break up. Does this mean that we should get rid of marriage? Of course Mt 19:10-12 not! It means we should work to strengthen married couples in their vocation. Similarly, the Church is not going to get rid of celibacy because a very few priests break their vows.
We know that marriage is a good thing because it was instituted by God, and made a sacrament by Christ. We know that celibacy is good because it was praised by Jesus (Mt 19:10-12), and strongly recommended by St. Paul for those who would devote themselves entirely to the ministry (1 Cor 7:32-35). We all know that millions of Christians have led saintly lives as both celibate and married people.
THE TRUE CHURCH
Scandals in the Church are not an argument against the Catholic claim to be the true Church. In the OT, we find baby sacrifice and temple prostitution involving leaders of the OT religion (Jer 32:32-35; 2 Kgs 23:7). Of the twelve Apostles, one betrayed Christ, one denied Him, one refused to believe in His Resurrection, and they all abandoned Him at the Garden of Gethsemani.
The Catholic Church is both human and divine. Because it is human, it will have scandals. Because it is divine, it will last forever. Scandals are found in all denominations; they have nothing to do with the Catholic Church being the true Church.
What St. Paul wrote concerning the Jews applies also to Christians:
Christ's faithfulness to His Church remains even when some of its members are unfaithful:
Scandals do not prove that the Catholic Church is false. They only prove what is obvious: that the Church contains sinners well as saints, tares along with the wheat. the parable of the wheat and the wee (Mt 13:24-30), Our Lord makes clear ti good and evil will exist side by side until t end of time:
Mt 13:47-48 also confirms that the Church contains good and bad members alike:
The parallel construction of Matthew 16:1 identifies the kingdom of heaven as Christ's Church: "I will build my church.... I will give you the key the kingdom of heaven...." Therefore, all the kingdom parables in Matthew 13 are describing the Church. also: Matthew 21:33-34 and Luke 22:24-30.
Is it biblical to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us? Catholics say yes, since we are all part of the communion of saints. Most Protestants say no, even though many of them recite the Apostles' Creed. Thus, they profess to believe in the "communion of saints," but usually they do not understand what this means. What does it mean to believe in the communion of saints? Does this belief give us the biblical foundations for the doctrine of intercessory prayer?
COMMUNION OF SAINTS
As the word suggests, the communion of saints refers to the bond of unity among all believers, both living and dead, who are committed followers of Christ. In Christ, we are made part of God's family (1 Tim 3:15), children of God (1 John 3:1), joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). This family communion of saints is known to Catholics as the Mystical Body of Christ.36 We are joined in a supernatural union as members of Christ's own body, and thus as members of one another. Each of us participates in the divine life of Christ Himself.
Be familiar with the image of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-5). Remind non-Catholics that because we as branches are connected to Christ the vine, we are also connected to each other.
It is the life and grace of Jesus that gives us life and unites us in our common pilgrimage to heaven.
St. Paul emphasizes this unity in Christ's body in 1 Cor 12:12-27 (especially verses 25-27) and in Rom 12:4-16. Know these passages.
INTERCESSORY PRAYER
What we have said about the communion of saints gives us the biblical reasons why Catholics ask the saints to intercede for them:
(1) All Christians are members of Christ's body and one another (Rom 12:5- and many others).
(2) Jesus has only one body (Eph 4:4; Col 3:15).
(3) Death cannot separate Christians from Christ or from one another (Rom 8:35-39).
(4) Christians are bound in mutual love (Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 5:11; Gal 6:2).
We are members of Christ's one body, united in His divine life even beyond the grave, and concerned with each other's salvation and growth in God's family. In that union, we call for help and support from our older brothers and sisters who have already won their crown of glory.
Just as in our human families we naturally turn to our siblings for aid and example, how much more should we turn to our supernatural family for help and inspiration.
Several objections are directed against the Catholic position on intercessory prayer.
Objection 1:
The saints are dead. Catholics practice necromancy, communication with the dead, which is condemned (Dt 18:10-11).
Necromancy means summoning forth spirits from the shadowy underworld (OT "Sheol"), in order to converse with them. By asking the saints in heaven to intercede for us, Catholics are not conjuring roaming spirits or communicating in any "spiritualistic" way. So prayer to the saints has nothing to do with necromancy.
Nor are the saints dead. The saints in heaven are alive and with God: "He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Mk 12:26-27). In Mark 9:4, Jesus is seen conversing with Elijah and Moses. Jesus tells the Good Thief: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23:43). In fact, the saints in heaven are more alive than we are. They are free all sin. They enjoy the fullness of God's giving presence. Flooded with God's they care more about us now than the: on earth.
Just as Paul asked fellow belie (saints) to pray for him (Rom 15:30; Col 1 Thess 5:25; Eph 6:18-19; 2 Thess) now we can ask Paul and the other saints in heaven to pray for us. We are not cut off from each other at death, rather we are brought closer through the communion we share in Christ.
We know that angels and saints r the prayers of the holy ones at God's (Tob 12:12; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4), supporting those prayers with their intercessions. martyrs underneath the heavenly altar cr: out for earthly vindication (Rev 6:9-showing they are aware of, and concerned with, earthly affairs. The angels and saints in heaven will intercede for us before thn throne of God if they are petitioned in prayer.
Objection 2:
1 Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator between God and man. Isn 'tprayer to the saints in violation of 1 Tim 2:5?
1 Tim 2:5 must be understood in the light of 1 Peter 2:5: "be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." St. Peter says that Christians share in the one, eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is mediator between God and man because of His priesthood. Therefore, to share in Christ's priesthood means to share in His mediatorship, both in heaven and on earth.
1 Tim 2:5 confirms that we share in Christ's mediation, when we read it in context. In verses 1-4, St. Paul asks Christians to participate in Christ's unique mediation by offering prayers and intercessions for all men:
We are called to unite ourselves to the one mediator Christ, "who gave himself as a ransom for all," by praying for all men, through Christ.
Because Christians share in the priesthood of Christ, we share in a lesser and dependent way in His unique mediation, interceding for all men.
Fellow Christians on earth intercede for each other in prayer without contradicting the unique mediation ofJesus Christ. Likewise, there is no contradiction of 1 Tim 2:5 if the saints in heaven intercede for us with their prayers. All prayer, whether in heaven or on earth, is in Christ and through Christ, our one mediator and high priest.
The principle is this: although God alone possesses all perfections, we can participate in God perfections by sharing in His divine life. For example, the Bible says only God is good (Mk 10:18). Yet we can share in that absolute Goodness: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt 25:23).
Jesus shares many of His unique roles with Christians in lesser ways. Jesus is the Creator of all things (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16-17), and yet He shares this role with men and women in procreation. Jesus is the only Shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet He delegates this role to St. Peter (Jn 21:15-16) and later to others (Eph 4:11). Jesus is the eternal High Priest, mediating His once-for-all sacrifice for our redemption (Heb 3:1, 7:24, 9:12, 10:12), and yet Christians are also called to join in Christ's priesthood, as we have seen (1 Pet 2:5; Rev 1:6, 5:10).
Obviously, Christ is the unique and primary Creator, Shepherd, and Priest, but each Christian participates in these roles in subordinate ways. By sharing Christ's divine life, Christians also share in Christ's role as the only mediator.
Objection 3:
The saints in heaven can't hear us.
Why not? Aren't they more alive now than when they were with us? The medium of communication is Christ himself - the vine between the branches. We and the saints form one communion, one body of Christ, being members of Him and members of one another. Heb 12:1 tells us that we are surrounded by "a cloud of witnesses." How could those watching be unconcerned about our welfare? Look at Rev 5:8 and Rev 8:3. The petitions offered as incense to God must be for those who still need help, the holy ones on earth. They are offered by those who can help the most, the holy ones in heaven.
In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk 16:19-30), the departed rich man is able to pray to Abraham and intercede for his brothers. This implies that there can be communication across the abyss, and that fraternal charity extends beyond the grave.
We are certain that the saints in heaven enjoy the face to face vision of God (1 Cor 13:12; 1 Jn 3:2). It is in this vision that they are aware of our prayers to them.
Objection 4:
How can saints hear all these prayers, from all different people, all the time? It must sound like a deafening babble.
Heaven has no space or time. Ever appears to God as one eternal present like God, the saints are outside of the limitations of space and time. Our earthly knowing is limited and incomplete "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but the to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood" (1 Cor 13:12). Our heavenly way of knowing is full and perfect.
In heaven, our human nature will be radically elevated beyond anything we can imagine:
St. Peter says we will "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). We will share in God's very nature, which makes all things possible (Luke 1:37), including hearing thousands of prayer requests simultaneously.
Think about it. If finite engineers can make inanimate computer chips capable of processing millions of instructions simultaneously, it should be child's play for the infinite God to make His living saints capable of processing millions of requests simultaneously.
In order to defend the doctrine of Purgatory, we must explain two preliminary distinctions:
Does God forgive the guilt of sin and still require punishment (reparation, atonement, expiation)?
Ask King David. In 2 Sam 12:13-14 we read:
God forgave the guilt of David's sin, but He still required reparation in the form of suffering. A man might forgive a neighborhood kid for breaking his window, but still insist that he repair the damages.
Where does Scripture distinguish between mortal and venial sin?
1 Jn 5:16-17 proves degrees of sin, distinguishing between deadly sin and sin that is not deadly.
James 1:14-15 reads:
St. James distinguishes desire from sin, and beginning sin from mature sin which brings death. Sin which brings death to the soul is mortal. Sin which only wounds and disfigures the soul is venial.
What if you die with only venial sins?
The souls of those who die in the prefect stat of grace, without the least sin or reparation due to sin, go directly to heaven. The souls of those who die in the
state of unrepented mortal (deadly) sin go directly to hell. What about the middle sort of people: those who die in the state of grace, but with venial sin or with unpaid reparation due to forgiven sin? They do not merit hell: they are still in the state of grace; yet they are not pure enough for heaven, where "nothing unclean shall enter" (Rev 21:27).
Is Purgatory reasonable?
In 1769, James Boswell asked Samuel Johnson:
Samuel Johnson replied:
Though not a Catholic, Johnson could see that Purgatory was perfectly reasonable.
Another non-Catholic who believed in Purgatory was C. S. Lewis. In his Letters To Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer, he writes:
What does the Bible say about this?
God is perfect holiness.
We are called to that same holiness.
Without perfect holiness, we cannot God in heaven.
What happens to the faithful who die without perfect holiness or with sin that is not deadly? The biblical, logical, and historical is Purgatory.
Purgatory comes from the verb " meaning "to purify or cleanse." We s keep this notion of purification in when explaining this doctrine.
What do we believe about Purgatory?
Purgatory is a temporary state of purfication for the imperfect saints. The souls of the just who have died in the state of grace but with venial sins or with reparation due for forgiven mortal and venial sins are fully cleansed in Purgatory so that they may enter heaven. In Purgatory all remaining reparation for sin is made; all remaining self-love is purged and purified until only love of God remains.
Is Purgatory Scriptural?
First, we should note that the word "purgatory" is not found in Sacred Scripture. This is not the point. The words "Trinity" and "Incarnation" are not found in Scripture, yet these doctrines are clearly taught there. Likewise, the Bible teaches that an intermediate state of purfication exists. We call it Purgatory. What is important is the doctrine, not the name.
Where does the Bible refer to the doctrine of Purgatory?
Jesus implies that some sins can be forgiven in the next world. Sin cannot be forgiven in hell. There is no sin to be forgiven in heaven. Any remission of sin in the next world can only occur in Purgatory.
This cannot refer to eternal loss in hell, for there no one is saved. Nor can it refer to heaven, for there no one suffers. It refers, then, to a middle state where the soul temporarily suffers loss so that it may gain heaven. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.
Note that it is a prison for disobedient spirits, and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them. This is not hell, because no one is saved from hell. This is probably not the "limbo of the fathers," (often called "Abraham's bosom," where the righteous souls of the OT waited until Christ opened the gates of heaven), because this is a place for disobedient spirits. One cannot imagine that St. Peter is describing the waiting place of such righteous OT saints as David and John the Baptist when he mentions disobedient spirits.
St. Peter is describing a temporary state for disobedient souls who were eventually saved. At the very least, it proves that a third state can exist besides heaven and hell. At the very most, it proves the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
The clearest affirmation of the existence of Purgatory comes from the Greek Septuagint: the Old Testament Scriptures used by Christ, all the NT writers, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage (which authoritatively determined the "canon" of inspired books of the Bible).
It is impossible to aid souls in heaven (they have no need), and equally impossible to aid souls in hell (they have no hope). Praying for the dead presumes souls in a middle state where atonement for sin can be made.
This passage from Maccabees is a PROOF text. It explicitly affirms an intermediate state where the faithful departed make atonement for their sins. 2 Maccabees was so contrary to the "justification by faith alone" theology of the Reformers that Martin Luther chose to remove it (along with six other books) from the Old Testament.
This takes us back to the question of the canon of the Bible: How do we know which books really constitute the Bible? By whose authority do we trust that the books upon which we stake our eternal salvation really are inspired?
Do we rely on the private judgment of a renegade priest, Luther, who also wanted to throw out Esther, James and Revelation, and who thought nothing of adding a word to his translation of Romans?
Or, do we accept the divinely-protected judgment of the Catholic Church who used her authority around the year AD 400 to determine the official canon of the Bible. This is the same Bible (less seven books) used by Protestants to attack the very authority of the Church who gave it to them.
Even if 2 Maccabees is rejected as Scripture, there can be no doubt tht, as history, the book accurately reflects the religious character of the Jews of the second century BC. A little more than one hundred years before Christ, Jews prayed for their dead (and still do today).
In fact, some of the earliest Christian liturgies (worship services) include prayers for the dead. Ancient Christian tomb insciptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayer for the dead.37 This practice makes sense only if
St. Peter is describing a temporary state for disobedient souls who were eventually saved. At the very least, it proves that a third state can exist besides heaven and hell. At the very most, it proves the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
The clearest affirmation of the existence of Purgatory comes from the Greek Septuagint: the Old Testament Scriptures used by Christ, all the NT writers, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage (which authoritatively determined the "canon" of inspired books of the Bible).
It is impossible to aid souls in heaven (they have no need), and equally impossible to aid souls in hell (they have no hope). Praying for the dead presumes souls in a middle state where atonement for sin can be made.
This passage from Maccabees is a PROOF text. It explicitly affirms an intermediate state where the faithful departed make atonement for their sins. 2 Maccabees was so contrary to the "justification by faith alone" theology of the Reformers that Martin Luther chose to remove it (along with six other books) from the Old Testament.
This takes us back to the question of the canon of the Bible: How do we know which books really constitute the Bible? By whose authority do we trust that the books upon which we stake our eternal salvation really are inspired?
Do we rely on the private judgment of a renegade priest, Luther, who also wanted to throw out Esther, James and Revelation, and who thought nothing of adding a word to his translation of Romans?
Or, do we accept the divinely-protected judgment of the Catholic Church who used her authority around the year AD 400 to determine the official canon of the Bible. This is the same Bible (less seven books) used by Protestants to attack the very authority of the Church who gave it to them.
Even if 2 Maccabees is rejected as Scripture, there can be no doubt tht, as history, the book accurately reflects the religious character of the Jews of the second century BC. A little more than one hundred years before Christ, Jews prayed for their dead (and still do today).
In fact, some of the earliest Christian liturgies (worship services) include prayers for the dead. Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayer for the dead.37 This practice makes sense only if
early Christians believed in Purgatory even if they did not use that name for it.
Tertullian, writing in the year AD 211, presents the practice of praying and sacrificing for the dead as an established custom: We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries.
The practice of praying for the dead was universal among Christians for fifteen centuries before the Reformation.
Are there any New Testament passages that refer to prayers and practices performed for the benefit of the deceased?
St. Paul prays for his departed friend Onesiphorus, which makes sense only' if he can be helped by prayer.
In his argument fort the resurrection of the body, St. Paul mentions (without condemning or approving) the practice of people having themselves baptized for the benefit of the dead, who cannot be helped if there is no intermediate state of purification.
In short, if the Jews, St. Paul, and the early Christians prayed for the dead, then we should have no fear of praying for them as well. Praying for the dead presumes an intermediate state of purification, whatever you may call it. Catholics call it Purgatory.
1. Why do Catholics call their priests "father," when Jesus commands us in Matthew 23:9 to "call no man your father on earth?"
In Matthew 23:1-12, when Jesus tells us to call no man "father" or "teacher," He is using figurative language to emphasize that all legitimate authority and truth ultimately come from God. We cannot take these passages literally. Otherwise, Jesus would be contradicting Himself for repeating the 4th command, "honor your father and mother" (Mt 19:19), and referring to "Father Abraham" (Luke 16:24).
Throughout the Bible men are called fathers and teachers. Both Catholics and Protestants call earthly men fathers and teachers. St. Stephen and St. Paul call the Jewish religious leaders "fathers" (Acts 7:2 and 22:1). St. Paul calls the Corinthians "my beloved children.... For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel" (1 Cor 4:14-15; also see 1 Thess 2:11, 1 Tim 1:2, and Tit 1:4). St. Paul became their spiritual father because he cooperated with God in giving them spiritual life, just as biological fathers cooperate with God in giving physical life. Catholics call their priests "father" because, like St. Paul, priests cooperate with God in giving spiritual life to their flock by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments.
2. Why do Catholics worship statues in violation of Exodus 20:4-5?
Catholics certainly don't worship statues, or anything created. The Catholic Church teaches that only God is to be worship to worship anything created is to commit the serious sin of idolatry. In Ex 20:4-5, God prohibits the making of images for the purpose of worshiping them. But God not prohibit image-making altogether. In Ex 25:18-19, God commands Moses to make statues of angels (cherubim). In Num 21:8, God tells Moses to make a bronze serpent (seraph), which the Israelites had to look upon in order to be healed. The Jews also used many carved images in the Temple, including cherubim, oxen, lions, palm trees, and flowers (1 Kings 6 and 7).
Catholics use statues and other images to call to mind the holy people they represent: Jesus, the angels, and the saints. For the same reason, Protestants use Christmas nativity scenes to depict the same holy people: Jesus, the angels, and the saints. Catholics simply use statues and images in devotions all year around.
The rejection of statues and other ages in Church devotional life is a heresy known as "iconoclasm." It was first seen in Christianity in the eighth century when the wicked Emperor Leo the Isaurian, influenced by the new religion of Islam (founded in AD 622), began attacking the use of statues and icons in the Church. In the Second Council of Nicea in AD 787, the Church condemned this heresy. It did not resurface in Christianity until the Reformation.
3. Didn't the Catholic Church become pagan after Constantine became emperor?
Constantine's Christian mother, St. Helena, raised him with Christian beliefs (although he delayed baptism until his deathbed). He defeated the pagan general Maxentius under the standard of the Christian cross in AD 312. The next year Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which officially ended the Roman persecution of the Church. It is absurd to think he attempted to paganize the Church. In AD 361, the emperor Julian the Apostate launched a persecution of the Church in an attempt to bring back pagan- ism. This would not have been necessary if the Church had become pagan at the time of Constantine (AD 312-337). A careful study of the first 300 years of Christian- ity reveals that Catholic doctrines such as the Eucharist, Apostolic authority, and the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, were believed by Christians from the very beginning. They certainly did not arise after Constantine.
4. Is the Mass really a sacrifice?
Protestants reject the Catholic teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for two reasons. They claim the Mass violates many passages in Hebrews which tell us Jesus was only sacrificed once, and that, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22, 25, 28, 10:11-12). They think Catholics teach Jesus is sacrificed again at every Mass. They cite Catholic catechisms which teach that in the Mass Jesus is offered in an unbloody manner.
The Catholic Church teaches that the one, all-sufficient, bloody sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary is made present at each Mass in an unbloody manner. Christ is not re-sacrificed at each Mass; rather, the Mass re-presents the one sacrifice of Calvary. Thus, the efficacy (effectiveness) of the Mass comes entirely from the one, bloody sacrifice of Calvary.
The passages referred to in Hebrews compare the many sacrifices of the 01 religion, which could not atone for sin nor reconcile mankind to God, with the one sacrifice of Christ which did atone for all sins and reconcile mankind to God. Hebrews also stresses that the bloody sacrifices of animals in the 01 prefigured the bloody sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sin.
The Mass, also known as the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist, repeats what happened at the Last Supper. At the Last Supper Our Lord turned bread into His body, and said that this body would be offered up (sacrificed) for us. He turned wine into His blood, and said that this blood would be shed (sacrificed) for us. Clearly, at the Last Supper, Jesus made His future sacrifice at Calvary .present. He then commanded His disciples to repeat this mystery. In 1 Cor 11:26, St. Paul tells us that in the celebration of the Eucharist we "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Thus, the Last Supper, which made the sacrifice of Calvary
present, will continue to be repeated in the Mass until the end of time. In this way, Christ's once-for-all sacrifice will be made present to the faithful until the end of time.
5. Does baptism regenerate, or is it only a symbolic washing?
Most Fundamentalists believe that baptism is only a symbolic washing - an ordinance, not a sacrament. Catholics believe that baptism is a sacrament of the NT instituted by Christ. Catholics believe that through baptism all sin, original and actual, is wiped away. The life of God, called sanctifying grace, is infused into the soul, and a person is born again of water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:5). Jesus made baptism a condition for entering heaven (Jn 3:5;Mk 16:16). In Acts 2:3 8, St. Peter says that through baptism our sins are forgiven and we receive the Holy Spirit. St. Paul says that we are given new life (regeneration) through baptism (Rom 6:4). Titus 3:5 tells us that we are saved "by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit," which refers to baptism. 1 Peter 3:20-21 says: "Baptism ... now saves you."
In essence, Fundamentalists confuse the baptism of Jesus with the baptism of John the Baptist. John's baptism was only a symbolic washing. However, John says that Jesus' baptism would give the Holy Spirit, whereas his own did not (Mt 3:11). At the time of the Reformation, many Protestants rejected baptism as a sacrament of regeneration because it did not fit with their new and unorthodox notion of justification by faith alone.
Jesus would not have made baptism a condition for entering heaven if it were only symbolic. The writings of the early Church Fathers show that they all taught that water baptism regenerates. The idea that baptism is only a symbolic washing arose centuries later with the Reformation.
6. Why do Catholics baptize infants?
Fundamentalists believe that baptism is only a symbolic washing signifying that a person has accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. According to them, since an infant cannot accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (because he does not have the use of reason), baptism is meaningless for him.
However, Jesus requires baptism for entering heaven (Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16). St. Paul tells us that all are born with Adam's sin and thus need baptism (Rom 5:18-19). Jesus makes clear that children are not to be kept away from Him (Mk 10:14). The Apostles baptized entire households (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16). This would include infants. No Bible passage prohibits infant baptism.
The early Church Fathers were clear that the baptizing of infants was a practice that came from the Apostles themselves. That infants lack the use of reason does not prevent them from becoming part of the New Covenant through baptism. In the OT, a child became part of the Old Covenant through circumcision. This was done eight days after birth, long before the child could choose for himself whether or not to be part of the Chosen People. Just as parents in the OT supplied the decision for the child's circumcision until he could confirm this decision at the age of reason, so in the NT parents stand in for the child at his
9. Can you lose your salvation once you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior?
Most, though not all, Fundamentalists believe that once you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, it is impossible to lose your salvation. This doctrine is known as "once saved, always saved." Like many other Protestant doctrines, this teaching was unheard of before the Reformation.
Mt 24:13 tells us that we must "endure to the end" in order to be saved. St. Paul says the same thing in 2 Tim 2:12: that we must hold out to the end if we want to reign with Christ. In Rom 11:22, Christians are warned that they will be cut off if they don't persevere in the kindness of God. Hebrews 6:4-6 describes people who are sharers in the Holy Spirit (born-again Christians) but then fall away from God.
Remember St. Paul's advice: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). Who should have more assurance of salvation than St. Paul? Yet he says: "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27). Scripture is very clear: Christians can reject God's grace and lose their salvation.
The Catholic Church teaches we must die in sanctifying grace in order to be saved. Any mortal sin leads to a loss of sanctifying grace and the risk of eternal, damnation if we should die in this state.
10. Why does the Catholic Church base some of its doctrines on tradition instead of basing them all on the Bible? Isn't tradition condemned in the Bible (Mt 15:3;Mk 7:9; Col 2:8)?
Fundamentalists think all tradition is condemned in Scripture. But the Bible speaks of two kinds of tradition: human and apostolic. Bad human tradition is condemned. In Mt 15:3 and Mk 7:9, Jesus clearly condemns human tradition that sets aside the commandments of God. In Col 2:8, St. Paul tells us to beware of false reasoning "according to human tradition." But in condemning erroneous human traditions (small "t"), neither Jesus nor St. Paul is condemning Apostolic Traditions (capital "T"), the deposit of divine truths that Jesus orally entrusted to the Apostles.
The Bible actually commands following Apostolic Traditions. St. Paul commends the Corinthians for following Apostolic Traditions (1 Cor 11:2). St. Paul commands the Thessalonians to keep them: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15; see also 2 Thess 3:6). Obeying St. Paul, the Church bases its doctrines on Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
11. Hasn't the Catholic Church changed its doctrines through the years?
Protestants often accuse the Catholic Church of changing its doctrines, or inventing new ones. Usually they are confusing Church doctrines with Church disciplines. A doctrine is an unchangeable truth revealed by God - such as the Virgin Birth, while a discipline is a changeable regulation - like the priest facing the people instead of the altar during the Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches there can be no new doctrines since the death of the last apostle. The Apostolic deposit of faith was delivered once and for all (Jude 3). However, the eternal truths of God must be lived out in different times, cultures, and places. Church disciplines which help us live out these truths are therefore adapted as conditions in the Church change.
We must also remember that doctrines can develop, in the sense of being under- stood more fully and made more explicit. These fuller insights are passed on by the Church through its teaching office (Magisterium). This is not invention, but proper growth. Whenever a non- Catholic insists that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrines, you can be sure that he has either confused a discipline with a doctrine, or else mistaken true doctrinal development for a new invention.
12. Why does the Catholic Church forbid its priests to marry? Doesn't St. Paul call forbidding marriage a "doctrine of demons" (1 Tim 4:1-3)?
The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage; the Church upholds the great dignity of marriage. Marriage is considered a holy sacrament that symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church (Eph 5:21-33). The Church only forbids marriage, as a matter of discipline, to those men who choose to become priests. No one is forced into the priesthood. Those who wish to become priests are asked to renounce sex for the sake of the kingdom of God. Remember, Jesus praises those who would freely renounce sex for the kingdom of God (Mt 19:12).
St. Paul's denunciation of those who forbid marriage applies to those who reject marriage entirely, as though it were evil in itself. St. Paul is warning against a false spirituality which holds that any part of God's good creation - including marriage - is evil (1 Tim 4:3-4).
St. Paul obviously is not condemning celibacy. St. Paul was himself single (1 Cor 7:8), just as Jesus was. St. Paul strongly recommends celibacy for those who would devote themselves entirely to the ministry:
Since St. Paul does not absolutely command celibacy for all full-time ministers, the Catholic Church teaches the requirement of celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. Thus, the Church allows certain exceptions to this requirement: for example, married Anglican priests who become Catholic can continue to be married even if they become Catholic priests.
Ask Protestants why they have so few, if any, celibate ministers, especially since St. Paul encourages it so strongly for full-time ministers of Christ.
13. Does it make any difference which Christian denomination I join?
Although it is very clear in Scripture and early Church history that Christ left only one Church, today we have over 33,000 Christian denominations. Does it matter which of these you join? It most certainly does! If Christ founded only one Church, then all the other Christian churches were founded by men. Although they believe much that is true, and have many members who are sincere Christians, we simply cannot choose any of them over the Church started by Christ.
14. How do we determine which is the Church founded by Christ?
The Church founded by Christ must go back in history to the time of Christ; its doctrines must be the same as those of the Apostolic Church; and its leaders must be able to trace their authority back to the Apostles (see page 15). Thus, historical continuity, doctrinal continuity, and continuity of Apostolic authority are the sure guidelines for determining which Church Jesus founded. Only the Catholic Church meets these requirements.
HISTORICAL CONTINUITY. Any objective history book will show that only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ.4' No Protestant denomination found today existed before 1517.
DOCTRINAL CONTINUITY. The early Church Fathers are our indispensable link to Apostolic Christianity. Their writings tell us what the first Christians believed. A careful study of the early Church Fathers shows they all taught distinctively Catholic doctrines.
CONTINUITY OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. The Bible and Sacred Tradition are very clear that Christ left a Church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and deacons with the successor of St. Peter as the head. Only the Catholic Church has such a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority - in an unbroken succession - back to the Apostolic authority established by Christ Himself.