Ó 2000 by Mark D. Steele, All Rights Reserved, Please feel free to share a copy with a friend but prior to posting it electronically or distribution to a group please get my permission.

An Epistle To My Father:  Why I Became a Catholic

 

                                                                        Ash Wednesday, 2000

Dear Dad:

For a while, I have wanted to write to explain my conversion to the Catholic Church, what I believe, and why I believe it.  St. Paul tells us that we should always be ready to give an account for the hope that is within us.  Every conversion is a process involving spiritual, emotional, and intellectual developments.  And any true conversion continues throughout one’s life as one allows grace to work its wonders.  People often spiritually know and intellectually understand the truth long before they are willing to commit to it.  I resisted much of this understanding and grew only slowly.  Long before I actually became a Catholic, I had begun to believe that much of the Catholic faith was true.

I debated as to how to write this letter.  I do not intend for it to be one long argument although I plainly state a case.  My hope is that you read it prayerfully and openly, with Bible in hand.  As you once taught me, if somebody says one thing and you find that it is true, and then another, and then another – the fourth thing they say is more likely to be true as well.  For references, I have mostly relied on the Bible and have consulted several modern English translations (the RSV, NASV, NIV, and the Catholic New American Bible).  I do not think that any of them are in substantial conflict regarding any of the references I’ve shared.  In a few places, I have referred to the writings of the early Church fathers (90 – 450 AD).  This was not done with the intent of proving the point authoritatively, but rather to show that the position and scriptural interpretation that I’m presenting is consistent with what the early Church believed.  If I’m wrong, then I’m in excellent company with the people who sat and learned at the feet of the Apostles and who, in many cases, literally gave their lives for Christ.  I have also quoted from the Catholic Catechism to demonstrate the doctrines of the Catholic Church in its own words.

Introduction

Bishop Fulton Sheen once commented that many Protestants disagree with what they believe to be Catholic teaching when, in fact, they would agree with real Catholic teaching if it were explained.  I have found this to be largely true as I have repeatedly discovered what the Catholic Church really teaches about many issues rather than what Protestants commonly portray those teachings to be.  In fact, some Protestants teach Catholic doctrine without even knowing it.  A preacher we both know once preached a sermon based on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.  His sermon was in perfect accord with the modern Catholic and the early Church Fathers’ teaching on purgatory.  The sad fact is that he would never have recognized this because he would have automatically rejected most Christian authors from the first 1500 years of Christianity. 

I have had to wrestle with many issues of Catholic doctrine, three of the most important being:

• The Eucharist
• Doctrinal Authority
• Salvation by Grace

There are other issues of course:  doctrines concerning Mary, the communion of saints, purgatory, etc.  But once the first three issues are understood, a big picture begins to emerge and these other issues fit into that big picture like missing puzzle pieces.  In this letter I will only deal with these three foundational issues.  Each one could fill (and has filled) several books.  I will be as brief as possible.  To accomplish this, I will provide Scripture references as footnotes without quoting the entire Scripture.

The Sacrament of Communion (the Eucharist)

Justin Martyr (approximately 150 AD) in his defense of Christianity called communion the Eucharist (or Eukarista).  This means the “thanksgiving”.  The early Church Fathers (and the Catholic Church today) commonly referred to prayers and rites by the first few words.  Thus, the Lord’s Prayer is called the “Our Father”.  Communion was commonly called the Eucharist because of the institutional words, “after He had given thanks”[1]. 

The Christian Union and the Assemblies of God (and most evangelical or fundamentalist Protestant Churches) teach that communion is symbolic, that it is done as a symbol in memory of Christ’s death.  My study of the Bible and the early Church Fathers (and their interpretation of scripture) led me to the realization that no Christian in the first five centuries of Christianity viewed communion as only symbolic.  They instead viewed it as a participation in Calvary, a New Testament fulfillment of the Passover supper in which the Passover lamb is sacrificed and eaten, and they held this view for good reason.

Jesus was the living, breathing fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel.  As such, the old covenant things that foreshadowed (or served as “types” of) His coming were fulfilled by His words or actions.  He was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.  The early Church clearly understood this and demonstrated time and again that the events, laws, rituals, and sacrifices of the Old Testament point to the fulfillment of the New Covenant.  Many of the events in Christ’s life were foreshadowed or foretold in the Old Testament.  Isaiah foretold that a Virgin would bear a child.  Jesus spent three days in the ground and that fulfilled the sign of Jonah who spent three days in the fish.  David’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem dressed in a priestly robe (or ephod) foreshadowed Christ’s triumphal entry as the Priest-King of the new covenant.  In fact, if one takes a “big picture” view of the Gospels, it is plain that the entire Exodus story is being reenacted (although this comparison could fill a book by itself)[2].  At the wedding feast in Cana, Jesus turned the water in the stone jars into wine.  This was the first miracle of His ministry and was foreshadowed by the first plague of Moses when even the water in the stone jars was turned to blood [3].  Jesus’ first miracle connected water, wine, blood and the covenant of marriage (like the marriage of Christ and the Church) and pointed toward the new Passover.

Several things in the Old Testament foreshadowed Communion and tie directly into the early Church’s understanding of the Eucharist:

·        The bread and wine of Melchizedek’s blessing.

·        The Passover Feast

·        The Show Bread in the Tabernacle/ Temple.

·        Manna from heaven.

The Priest of Salem

Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God and King of Salem, met Abram and blessed him.  He offered him bread and wine to eat.  But he did more than that – he foreshadowed the priesthood of Jesus and made the first offering of bread and wine that Jesus would later transform into His broken body and the blood of the New Covenant.  In the Old Testament, Melchizedek is only mentioned in Genesis[4], when he brought the bread and wine to Abram and blessed him, and the Psalms when David prophesied that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek[5].  It is important to understand the significance of Melchizedek’s priesthood to the Old Covenant.  Under the Old Covenant, fathers were priests and their firstborn sons succeeded them.  God only changed this when the Israelites sinned and worshipped the golden calf.  He then took the priesthood away from the firstborn of all the tribes and gave it temporarily to the Levites[6].  David’s prophesy that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek meant that God would restore the priesthood of sonship after the order or pattern of Melchizedek rather than the pattern of Aaron.  Doing so would create a priesthood of believers and reestablish the holy nation/ royal priesthood calling of the Old Covenant[7].  This restoration occurred when Jesus instituted the New Covenant.

In the Gospels, Jesus only once referred to the New Covenant and that was at the Last Supper when He told the disciples that this was the New Covenant in His blood.  Whereas Melchizedek offered bread and wine, Jesus offered Himself under the appearance of bread and wine.  Whereas Melchizedek’s blessing was only felt by the direct descendents of Abraham, Jesus expanded this blessing to all nations.  He fulfilled God’s promise to Abraham that through him all nations would be blessed and the prophesy of Malachi that all nations would bring to the Lord a pure offering.[8]

In the New Testament, Melchizedek is only mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews.  Much of the book of Hebrews is spent explaining to us how Jesus fulfills Melchizedek’s priesthood by offering His blood, perpetually, continuously, in the heavenly Holy of Holies.  He is the Lamb that was slain and He is standing before the presence of God[9].  Through the Eucharist, we participate in this perpetual sacrifice[10] that was done once and for all.  Through the Eucharist, we are strengthened and equipped to follow the will of God.  Through this blood of the Lamb, we are able to overcome the accuser[11].  We, too, become priests after the pattern of Melchizedek and we, too, participate in the heavenly offering by partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

The Passover Feast

Jesus is our Passover lamb[12].  To fully understand what this means, we must first understand the original Passover Feast as well as how Jesus instituted the New Covenant by instituting a New Passover. 

I will not recount the entire Exodus story but it is important to note several things about the Passover.

1. God required that the Passover lamb be perfect, without blemish or broken bones  Jesus fulfilled this when He died on the Cross without having His legs broken[13]. 
2. The Passover lamb saved the people of Israel from the judgment of God being rained down upon Egypt.  Their observance of the entire Passover feast, culminating in the blood being sprinkled on their doorframes, saved their firstborn from death.  Once again, the Lord provided (Jehovah jireh) a sacrifice as a replacement for the firstborn just as He did for Isaac.
3. The Passover sacrifice was not complete until the lamb was eaten.  If they failed to observe any part of the sacrifice they would not be spared[14].
4. The Passover sacrifice was to be observed FOREVER by Israel by eating unleavened bread.  The unleavened bread was the key part of this remembrance.  Israelites who ate leavened bread during the Passover were to be excommunicated or cut off[15].

Israel, during the Passover feast, also drank (and still drinks) four cups of wine[16].  One of these was the cup of blessing that called to mind the blessing of the Old Covenant (remember Melchizedek and his cup of blessing).  Jesus, on the night that He was betrayed, was celebrating the Passover feast with His apostles.  If we read the various Gospel accounts of the Last Supper and place all of them together in the context of a Passover feast then several things become clear.

1. When supper was ended, Jesus took the cup of blessing (the third cup of wine taken as part of the Passover feast).  He then instituted the New Covenant in His blood and the disciples drank the wine[17]. 
2. At this point, Jesus told the disciples that He would not drink wine again until the He had come into His kingdom[18].  This is a very important part of the last supper because Jesus was telling the disciples that they would not drink the fourth cup of Passover wine.  He was interrupting the Passover.  Usually, following the fourth cup, a hymn or psalm is sung and everyone leaves.  Now, without ending the feast, they sang a hymn and adjourned to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray[19]. 
3. Jesus then prayed in the Garden and asked the Father to take “this cup” from Him[20].  He submitted to the Father’s will and accepted the fourth cup – which was to be the cup of His suffering, the blood of the Passover lamb poured out over Jerusalem.
4. Jesus was sentenced to death at noon[21] which was the hour at which priests in the temple began to kill the Passover lambs.
5. Jesus was then crucified, and, during His Crucifixion, John tells us that hyssop was used to put wine to Jesus’ mouth.  Hyssop is the plant that the Israelites were told to use to put the Passover lamb’s blood upon their doorposts[22]
6. At the end of His Crucifixion, He cried out “It is finished.”[23]  What was finished?  The Old Covenant?  Not exactly.  In fact the Old Covenant was to be perpetual as promised by God and the New would only fulfill that promise.  The act of redemption – no, because Paul tells us that this was finished when Christ rose from the dead.  The New Passover was finished.  Jesus had transformed the Passover feast by turning the cup of blessing into His blood.  Now He completed the New Passover by pouring out His blood as a perpetual sacrifice for sin. 
7. The disciples, who drank the cup of the New Covenant in His blood, participated in the new Passover sacrifice that did not end until Jesus said that it was finished.  To this day, we participate in the new Passover sacrifice by partaking of the new Passover Lamb – the Lamb who is the Bread of Life and whose blood is the New Covenant[24].

Jesus shared communion with the disciples on the way to Emmaus (in fact, that is how they recognized Him)[25].  He had come into His kingdom – a kingdom not of this world.  This covenant meal will continue to be shared in heaven.  It is the marriage feast of the Lamb  At the marriage feast, what is eaten?  The Lamb of course - The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, happy are those who are called to His supper[26]..

Manna from Heaven

Many things ordered by God in the Old Testament seem to stand out as a mystery until they are linked to events in the New Testament (the serpent on the pole, the show bread of God’s presence, the layout of the Tabernacle/Temple, the promise to make David’s throne endure forever, the “sacrifice” of Isaac, etc.).  As Jesus told the disciples, many prophets and Israelites would have given anything to know what was being revealed to the disciples. 

While Israel was in the desert, God provided food from heaven, manna, for them to eat.  At various other times, He provided water and quail meat.  But manna stands alone among these miracles because God ordered that a pot of manna be placed in the Ark of the Covenant along with the Ten Commandments and Aaron’s staff.  The Ten Commandments and Aaron’s staff are intimately related to the institution of the Old Covenant, the first as a record of the Law and the second as a three-fold sign:  of God’s power in freeing Israel from the Egyptians, of the priesthood of the descendants of Aaron, and of the new life that God would bring forth from Israel (as a flowering branch).  But the manna was included with no explanation.  Why manna and not quail meat or water from the rock?  Through the centuries, the manna sat there as a mystery to be revealed by Jesus.  The manna was not essential to the Old Covenant but to the New.  It foreshadowed Jesus, who would be the new manna, come down from heaven to feed the people of the New Covenant.

Jesus set the stage for revealing this truth by first re-enacting the miracle of the manna.  In John 6, he miraculously fed the multitude in the wilderness.  That got the crowd’s attention.  When they clamored for additional signs of His identity, He revealed the hard truth about Himself. 

• First, Jesus tells them not to work for food that perishes but to work for the food that He will give them that endures for eternal life.  They reminded Jesus that their fathers ate manna in the desert and ask Him to give them a sign. 
• He then tells them that He is the new manna, the Bread of Life, who comes down from Heaven to do, not His own will, but the will of the Father (foretells His prayer in the garden of Gethsemane). 
• They grumble about His sayings so He tells them that He is the bread of life that comes down from heaven and the bread that He gives is his flesh for the life of the world (vs. 49-51).
• The Jews then ask, how can he give us his flesh to eat? (v. 52)
• Jesus does not explain that it is a symbol or metaphor (because it is not).  In fact, He becomes even more literal and says that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you do not have life in you (v. 53).  Just so there would be no confusion, He then said that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink and that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood remains in Him (v. 56).  Repeatedly throughout the Gospels, when His listeners did not understand what Jesus was saying, He further explained Himself (eg Mt. 19:24-26, Jn 11:11-14, Jn 8:32-34).  When the listeners understood what He said but were willfully rejecting His teachings, He repeated Himself (eg Mt. 9:2-7, Jn. 8:56-58).  In this case Jesus repeated Himself because those who were rejecting His teaching were not doing so out of misunderstanding but unbelief.
• At this point, there was no confusion in the listeners’ minds about what Jesus was claiming.  In fact, in Greek, Jesus changed from the word “to eat” when He first expounded this teaching (vs. 51) to the word “to gnaw or munch” when He repeated it (vs. 54).  He went from less literal to more literal even though people were beginning to reject Him for this teaching.
• Many of His followers began to murmur and He asked them why they are shocked.  He said, basically, who do you think that I am?  Would it shock you to see me ascend into heaven?  But there are some who do not believe.
• He also told them that they could only believe if they relied on the spirit rather than on their physical, human natures or flesh (vs. 61-65).  In other words, they had to accept His teaching at face value, on faith.  This was virtually the same thing that He said when He stated that the Holy Spirit had revealed His identity to Peter, not flesh and blood.[27]
• Many of his disciples refused to accept this teaching and they left.  Jesus asked the 12 if they were going to leave and Peter answered that “there is nowhere else to go.  We believe that you possess words that are spirit and truth and that you are the Holy One of God”.  This, of course, was the right, faith-filled, answer.  The 12 stayed and took His teaching on faith even though He had yet to reveal the mystery of how He would accomplish His promise.

Jesus, of course, went on to make this promise a reality.  At the Last Supper, He spoke the words of spirit and truth, “this is my body, this is my blood”.  Nowhere did He allow for any metaphorical or symbolic understanding of these words.  He was literal to the point of allowing followers to leave and put their salvation in jeopardy.  It is a take it or leave it attitude.  And well it should be, He who spoke the universe into existence and Incarnated Himself as flesh and blood could easily transform a cup of wine and a piece of bread.  Many have said that this is absurd or a “hard saying”.  But it is no more absurd to believe that the Creator of the universe makes Himself present in bread and wine than that He was born of a virgin and became man.

The Show Bread

Jesus is the Bread of Life.  He is “God with us”.  Another of the mysterious commands of God in the Old Testament is the institution of the Show Bread[28].  Like, the manna in the Ark, the Show Bread only makes sense when properly linked to the New Testament.

The show bread was placed before the presence of the Lord to show His presence to the people.  Only priests could eat the show bread – it was the most sacred oblation or offering to the Lord and His by perpetual right.  David, the anointed king, ate the show bread in violation of the law and Jesus validated this action[29].

But why require that the Israelites offer bread as the most sacred offering to the Lord?  Why use bread to show the Lord’s presence on earth?  These are unanswered questions in the old covenant because they point to the new covenant.  In the new covenant, Jesus himself became the show bread, the bread of life.  He fulfilled the purpose of the show bread in the Old Covenant because He does not just symbolize the Lord’s presence, He is the Lord’s presence, Emmanuel, God with us.  In the Eucharist He restores and fulfills this gift of God’s presence and each of us who are joint-kings after the Son of David are called to partake of this Living Bread.

The Unbroken Line of Teaching

Some say, “where is the doctrine of transubstantiation (or the literal transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, complete with all of its humanity and divinity) in Scripture?”  Well, if you successfully (in your own mind) explain away the obvious literal sense of Jesus’ teachings in John 6 and ignore His words at the Last Supper when He said “this is my body, this is my blood”, Paul made the case quite clearly in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11.  The Apostle Paul clearly taught that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ and that when we partake of this food we participate in His sacrifice[30]. 

Paul later stated that if you partake of the bread and wine without discerning or recognizing the body and blood of Christ, you are damning yourself[31].  Paul went on to warn the Corinthians that they were abusing communion and that many were sick because of the judgment resulting from this abuse.  How were they abusing communion?  They were eating the bread and wine without recognizing the body and blood of Jesus.  Paul was clearly passing on that which he was given, that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus for us to eat.  Jesus said they would in John 6 and said that they did during the Last Supper.  Remember that in the Old Covenant, the penalty for violating the Passover by eating leavened bread was being cast out of Israel or excommunication.  If so great of a penalty existed for violating that which was truly symbolic, how much more is the penalty for profaning the very body of Christ in the New Passover. 

Paul’s statement is more stringent than that of the Old Covenant for to be cast out of the New Covenant is damnation.  But how could you be profaning the very body and blood of the Lord unless the body and blood is truly present?  If it were only symbolic then no such profanation could occur.  How could you be guilty of crucifying Christ by eating and drinking symbols.  The Show Bread of the Old Covenant was only symbolic and Jesus allowed that although David ate it unlawfully, he was all right.  David could not profane the presence of God because the show bread was not the presence of God (although he was violating the Law).

Peter and Paul died in the late 60’s of the 1^st Century.  The Apostle John died close to the end of the century (probably the 90’s, he is the only Apostle known to have died of natural causes).  By the turn of the century, all of the original Apostles were gone and those that they appointed and taught were passing on their teachings.  These immediate successors of the Apostles, the early Church fathers, faithfully passed on the teaching that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  I have included only a few to demonstrate the unbroken chain of teaching that has transmitted this truth to the present day:

• "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They [the Docetists] 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 that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 110]).

• "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 110]).
• "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.  For the Apostles in the memoirs made by them which are called gospels, have thus narrated that the command was given; that Jesus took bread, gave thanks and said, 'This do in remembrance of me; this is my body.'  And he took the cup likewise and said 'This is my blood.' " (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [Justin Martyr, A.D. 151]).

• "If the Lord were from other than the Father [and thus incapable of performing miracles], how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 189]).
• "He 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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life - flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Ibid., 5:2).

• "'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 191]).
• "[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed .. . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [Tertullian, A.D. 210]).

• "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350]).
• "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. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, ... partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (Cyril of Jerusalem, ibid., 22:6, 9).

• "'And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table' [Prov. 9:1] . . . refers to His [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [Hippolytus, A.D. 217]).
• "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: 'My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink' [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [Origen of Alexandria, A.D. 248]).  
• "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned--[lapsed Christians will often take communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to His body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15-16 [Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 251]).
• "Perhaps you may be saying, 'I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?' It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, A.D. 390]).
• "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my body,' but, 'This is my body.' In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my blood,' but, 'This is my blood'; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [Theodore of Monseustia, A.D. 405]).
• "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [Augustine, Bishop of HippoA.D. 411]).
• "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice is the Blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Sermons 272, AD 411+).
• Council of Ephesus:  "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving" (session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

What the Church teaches about the Eucharist

The Eucharist is not re-sacrificing Christ.  It is participating in the one sacrifice that was for all time – the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world, the blood presented once for all in the heavenly holy of holies, the lamb’s blood that enables us to overcome the accuser.  To provide a more complete picture of the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, I have included several sections on the Eucharist taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994):

The Signs of Bread and Wine

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them:  "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"  The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks.  It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division.  "Will you also go away?":  the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning.  Jesus' passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did.  It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:  They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers....  Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread."  From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure.  It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus "until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the cross," toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.

Authority – Who/What Has It?

Scriptural Authority

A key doctrine of all Protestant churches is some variation on the theme that “the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice”.  This doctrine is ironic considering that NO Scripture says this.  In fact, the Scriptures largely reject this idea.

The Bible does claim divine inspiration.  Protestants often use 2 Timothy 3:16 as support for the “Bible only” position.  But what does this verse say in context?  What do we know from 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

1.         Timothy remained faithful to what he had been taught because he knew his teacher (Paul).  In other words, he believed and was faithful because he trusted Paul and Paul’s message (vs. 14).

2.         Timothy was taught scripture from childhood.  In Timothy's childhood, he could only have been taught the Old Testament since the New was not written (vs. 15).  Paul actually makes the claim that the Old Testament will back up his teaching, not that the Old Testament is the only source of doctrinal authority.

3.         The scriptures are "capable" of giving wisdom for salvation.  This does not state that they are the only way of receiving wisdom for salvation or that wisdom itself is enough (in fact, we know that one cannot even say that Jesus is the Son of God without grace imparted by the Holy Spirit) (vs. 15).  And, in fact, Paul received wisdom for salvation directly when Christ knocked him off of his horse on the road to Damascus.

4.         God inspired Scripture (vs.16).  This is true but does not support a “Bible only” position.  God also inspires individuals – Paul claims just such inspiration throughout the New Testament.  In addition, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be available for just such a purpose.(16)

5.         Scripture is profitable or useful for teaching and training so that we might perform good works.  Great!  Who would argue with this?  But this still does not support “Bible only” for doctrine or practice. (vs. 16-17)

2 Peter 1:20 warns that Scripture is not subject to private interpretation.  Some might argue that this only applies to prophecy (as in foretelling) but a short exploration of the word “prophecy” in Vine’s reveals that “prophecy” in the New Testament is not primarily predictive but is encouragement, exhortation, and revelation of divine truth.  In other words, the New Testament IS prophecy.  It reveals to us truths about God and His relationship to man and encourages, exhorts, and commands us to follow Christ’s teachings.  Peter elsewhere told us why Scripture is not subject to private interpretation.  He said that Paul’s letters, and other Scripture as well, are difficult to understand and easily distorted.  He also warns that people are distorting them to their own ruin[32]

What the Bible Says/Does About Tradition

The Bible condemns manmade traditions that interfere with the working of God’s grace but supports and validates the oral transmission of God’s revelation.  In fact, it commands this oral transmission and commands Christians to obey it.  Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel.  Nowhere did He tell them to write it down.  In fact, only 5 of the original 12 Apostles wrote New Testament books – Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude - and their writings account for less than ½ of the New Testament (Mark, Luke, and Paul accounting for the remainder).

The Bible is clear that what is written is not all that happened or all that was said.  Luke told Theodilus that he wrote the gospel so that Theodilus could know the certainty of the things he was taught – in other words, to back up the preaching of the Gospel that Theodilus had already received[33].  John also told us that there are other things not written in his gospel[34].  John is also not opposed to oral tradition so long as it does not oppose Apostolic teaching[35].  For John and Luke the test is not “is this written?” but “is this apostolic?” (or, is this the message that we have faithfully passed on to you?) and they both recognize that the second is more important than the first.  The Book of Acts even includes a saying of Christ that is not found in any of the gospels[36] – further backing up the claim that the Apostles were teaching based on the revelation they had received rather than written gospels (Paul – I am passing on that which I received, that, on the night he was betrayed …).  The Gospel is not a book, but a complete revelation of God’s plan for salvation.

Both the OT and the NT support the use of oral tradition by incorporating traditions that are not written in Scripture.  Both condemn false traditions of men but both validate some traditions as being accurate transmissions of revelation.  How did Moses know about Adam, Noah, and Abraham to write the book of Genesis?  He knew because of hundreds of years of oral tradition.  One might argue that the Holy Spirit revealed it all to him when he wrote the Pentateuch but clearly, at the burning bush, he knew who Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were and recognized God accordingly.  He also recognized that God had a covenant with Israel without one word of Scripture having been written.  His writings validated all of this tradition.  The writer of Joshua admitted that the events happened before his time [37].  Whole other books were obviously written well after the time periods involved[38]. 

The New Testament also incorporated oral tradition prevalent in the 1^st century Jewish world: 

• Why is the New Covenant superior to the Old Covenant?  One reason is that while the Old Covenant was given through angels, the New Covenant was given through God Incarnate.  Acts 7:53, Hebrews 2:2, and Galatians 3:19 all attest to the truth that the Old Covenant was given through angels.  This truth was recognized by 1^st century Jews.  Yet, this truth is found nowhere in the Old Testament.  In fact, this truth was found in other non-canonical sources and oral traditions of the first century.  Yet, the New Testament ratified it and stated it as fact. 
• Who were Jannes and Jambres?  They were the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses.  The OT did not mention their names but Paul did in 2 Timothy 3:8-9. 
• Jude twice validated oral tradition by incorporating it in his epistle.  In verses 8-9 he recounted the tradition that Michael disputed Satan over Moses’ body (not found in the OT) and verses 14-15 recounted a prophesy of Enoch not found in the OT. 
• Hebrews 11:36 mentioned that prophets were sawn in two yet this is not found in the OT.  Oral tradition, familiar to all Jews (then and now) maintained that this was the fate suffered by the prophet Isaiah. 

Jesus also validated doctrine that resulted from oral tradition rather than the Old Testament.  Sounding reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s claim that the Bishop of Rome sits on the seat of Peter and bears his teaching authority (discussed later), Jesus claimed that the Pharisees and priests sat on the “seat of Moses” and that their teaching authority was binding on even His own disciples[39].  This doctrine of a succession of authority from Moses is found nowhere in the Old Testament

But more than just validating past oral traditions by including them in Scripture, the New Testament clearly placed the oral transmission of the Gospel on an equal (or even higher) level than written Scripture:

• 1 Corinthians 11:2 - Paul praised the Corinthians for holding fast to the tradition taught by Paul.  This was his first letter to them so he must have been talking about oral teaching.
• 2 Timothy 1:13 – Paul said to take as your norm or standard of belief and behavior (faith and morals) the words that you heard from me (Paul).
• 2 Timothy 2:2 - faithfully pass on Paul’s teachings.
• 2 Thes. 2:15 - hold fast to the traditions that Paul taught, both orally and in writing.
• 2 Thes. 3:6 - shun anyone who does not hold fast to these traditions. (excommunication for denying the binding nature of the traditions taught by Paul).
• 1 John 4:6 - anyone who knows God listens to us (the Apostles).
• 3 John 1:13,14 - John says that he has many things to say to them, but face-to-face is better than a letter.  This could be because the things are difficult to understand or because they require emphasis that can only be put into them verbally.

Some would argue that this is all fine, but the New Testament was only just then being written, so of course people had to rely on oral teaching.  But once the New Testament was complete and the Apostles were gone, oral tradition would no longer have authority.  No Scripture supports this theory.  They argue that when the perfect has come, that which is imperfect passes away[40].  This is a clear case of taking a verse out of context.  Within the context of the chapter, the perfect that is to come is when we see God face-to-face.  For those of us alive, that has not yet happened.  The concept that anything (including oral revelation, church authority, gifts of the Holy Spirit) passed away with the Apostles is contrary to the Scriptural concept of the Church and is not found in Scripture itself.

Church Authority

Summary

The concept of the “invisible” Church has crept into standard Protestant theology.  This doctrine is an obvious rationalization to explain separation from the Church.  It runs counter to both the letter and spirit of the Bible’s description of the Church.

Christ founded the Church and gave it the authority to interpret doctrine and preach the Gospel, to bind and loose, and to forgive or retain sins.  None of this authority died with the Apostles (if it did than so did the Church).  In this section, I will look at the Church’s doctrinal authority, the hierarchy and transmission of this authority, the authority to forgive/retain sins, and Papal authority.

Doctrinal Authority

While there are no scriptures to support the “Bible only” position, a mass of scripture that supports the position that the Church has the authority to give binding instruction for faith and morals:

• The Church, not Scripture, is the foundation of truth.  1 Timothy 3:15

• Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and that the Church would not be left desolate.  (John 16:13 and John 14:15-18)
• The message of salvation was hidden until the Apostles were charged to reveal it.  (Matthew 28:20, Col. 1:25-28, Gal. 2:7-8)
• The Apostles were given binding authority on earth and in heaven.  (MT 18:18)
• Jesus promised that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church.  (Matthew 16:18)

• Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to speak for Him.  Matthew 10:12-15 - if the teachings of the Apostles were rejected then Christ was rejected and it would be worse for those towns than for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement.  If they hear you, they hear me, if they reject you, they reject me (Luke 10:16) 
• The Apostles exercised this authority and their decision was binding on all Christians.  Acts 15:1-35 - the council of Jerusalem shows how the early Church exercised this apostolic authority in matters of doctrine and morals.  Their decision was significant and binding.  Note that Peter stated (vs. 28) that it seemed right to them and to the Holy Spirit.  He claimed to speak directly for God in the same way that Jesus did.  Without Christ's promises, this would have been blasphemy. 

In Scripture, the primary duty of Christians is to obey their leaders as they would the Lord and the leaders that have been appointed are accountable to God for the salvation of those they lead:

• 1 Corinthians 11:1 - Paul tells the Corinthians to imitate him as he imitates Christ.
• Hebrews 13:7 - Imitate your leaders' way of life.
• Hebrews 13:17 - Obey your leaders because they have to give an account for you.
• Jude 1:8 – Dreamers and false teachers reject authority.

The apostles required unity in doctrine[41], morals[42], worship or liturgy (do not forsake the fellowship, breaking of bread), and church government[43].

Paul himself submitted to Church leadership.  In fact, he submitted his teachings to a select group of the Apostles at the Council in Jerusalem to approve and validate that he was teaching the true gospel[44].  When he appointed leaders (bishops like Timothy or Titus) to oversee local churches, he did not cease to be responsible for them and they were accountable to him[45]. 

Paul claimed that the Church is the very foundation and pillar of the truth[46].  If by “Church” he meant an invisible body made up of some members of many denominations, then why can’t those members agree on what the truth is.  In fact, depending on how they are counted there are 8,000 – 25,000 Protestant denominations/groups in the world.  They exist because they fundamentally disagree on the truth. 

Any private interpretation of Scripture can only lead to a “plausible explanation”.  Scripture is deep enough, and in some cases difficult enough to understand, that this “plausible explanation” will usually be one of several possible plausible explanations or interpretations.  As valuable as the internal witness of the Holy Spirit and textual comparisons are to the interpretation of Scripture, the resolution of doctrinal and moral disputes was left to the Church, not the individual. 

From the very beginning, Church decisions were binding on all Christians.  As stated previously, the Council of Jerusalem demonstrated this binding authority.  This council made two very important decisions:  one, the letter to Antioch concerning Gentile Christians and two, the review and approval of Paul’s teachings.  Paul submitted his teaching to the Apostles for review and met with Peter alone for 15 days[47] so that he could be sure that he had not preached a false gospel message.

The blessing of Christ is that Christians can know the truth and be set free.  This freedom cannot be realized so long as we cannot know for certain that the doctrines we believe are without error.  This freedom is not gained without much study, prayer, and submission to both the Holy Spirit and the teaching authority of the Church that speaks for Jesus Christ.  This teaching authority means that, especially on teachings essential to salvation (faith and morals), one is assured of what the truth is.  Submission means following that truth to Christ.  That is the hard part.

Jimmy Swaggert once said that when we all get to heaven, we will find out we were wrong about something.  True enough, but we will only be wrong where our beliefs and actions conflict with the binding teachings of the Church.  The true tragedy of this is that we could have known about our errors by studying those teachings now and conforming to them.

In summary, the Bible nowhere states that Scripture alone is the rule for faith and practice.  In fact, it says that Scripture, although inspired, is difficult to understand and not subject to private interpretation.  It also says that the Apostles (and by extension those they appoint) are to be received as we would receive Christ.  In addition, it places the oral transmission of the Gospel on a level equal to, or higher than, the written transmission.  Finally, it commands us to imitate and obey the leaders appointed over us and tells us that those leaders will have to give an account for our souls.  The great mass of Scripture supports the idea that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the final authority on doctrinal issues.

The Hierarchy of Authority

This authority did not end at the death of the Apostles as some would claim.  The Apostles understood that apostleship was an office and that when an apostle died, someone should be appointed to take his place[48].  The apostles passed along their mission and authority to those appointed as bishops (examples Timothy and Titus).  They gave them authority to ordain[49], guard the deposit of faith[50], to discipline church members[51], and to teach authoritatively[52].

There were no independent Churches in the New Testament.  Every Church was founded by and accountable to the Apostles.  There were no independent Christians within those Churches, free to hop from church to church as they pleased, they were accountable for their obedience to their leaders and bishops.  The pastors were not elected by the congregations but appointed by the Apostles or the bishops.  The Church acted, in so far as it was capable with the communications of the time, as one body shepherded by one group of Apostles, headed by Christ – it was not a democracy.  Collections were taken up by local churches to support the work of the Apostles and the Jerusalem church[53].  In addition, bishops were dispatched to various areas (such as Titus in Crete) to start churches and appoint presbyters while remaining accountable to the Apostles. 

Clement of Rome (approximately 96 AD)[54] confirmed that the Apostles appointed bishops (verified in the NT) and gave them instructions to appoint others when they died.  His letter to the church at Corinth was so highly regarded in the early Church that many argued for its inclusion in the New Testament and one of the earliest codexes containing books of the New Testament also contains this letter.  Although the Church decided not to include it in Scripture, it remains inarguable evidence as to what the Apostles taught those they appointed. 

About 10 years after Clement’s letter, Ignatius of Antioch, wrote that bishops are so by the will of Jesus Christ and that anyone who rejected them, rejected Christ (like John??).  We know from other early church documents that Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John late in John’s life.

So even if one rejects all the evidence of the New Testament concerning the hierarchy and authority of the Church, by the year 100, within 35 years of the death of Peter and Paul and less than 10 years from the death of John, the 3 fold ministry of bishops, presbyters (or priests), and deacons was the norm for the Church (Ign Eph 5).  Christ promised that His Church would prevail against the gates of Hell, that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth, and that it would not be left desolate.  If, in less than 10 years from the death of the Apostle John, the Church had already strayed from the Apostolic teachings, then Christ’s promise was a lie.  The alternative is to believe that these disciples of the Apostles faithfully passed on that which they received.  They clearly stated that they were doing so.

The early Church fathers clearly understood and explained the role and authority of Scripture and Tradition in the Church.  Athanasius stated the case in the 4^th century when he said:

“But beyond these [scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.  Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.”

Athanasius understood that rebellion always breeds more rebellion and could just as easily have been referring to the “Reformation” as to the heretics of his day when he said (reminiscent of Paul’s statement about being blown around by every wind of doctrine):

“For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various discordant changes.”

Basil (330-374 AD), while defending the doctrine that the Holy Spirit was God in the same way that the Father and the Son are God, said:

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery.  In respect to piety both are of the same force….Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kerygma to a mere term.”

The mission and authority that the Apostles passed on to the likes of Timothy, Titus, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch were passed on to the next generation as those appointed by the Apostles eventually appointed others to carry on the shepherding of the Church and the proclamation of the Gospel.  This mission and authority is still in existence as bishops continue to ordain bishops, presbyters (priests), and deacons to shepherd the flock and teach the Gospel.  It continues unbroken to this day.

The Authority to Forgive/Retain Sins

In addition to doctrinal or teaching authority, Peter and the other Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins (Matthew 16 & 18).  Peter exercised this authority in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  He said that Sapphira would die because she lied to the Holy Spirit (although literally she lied to the Apostles) and she did die.  His decision was as binding as it could be.  The Apostles also passed this authority on to the presbyters (or priests) so that if they anointed a sick man with oil, his sins would be forgiven[55].  Once again, there is no Scripture supporting the doctrine that the authority to forgive/retain sins died out with the Apostles.

Papal Authority

I am not going to spend a lot of time discussing the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the special representative of Christ, the steward or prime minister of the Kingdom.  The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, derives his special authority from the special authority granted to Peter by Jesus in Matthew 16.  Even most Protestant scholars today recognize that grammatically and logically, Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock upon which the Church would be built.  But even if this were not so, Jesus specifically gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.  As with the Passover, this gift had a very special meaning to Israel that is often lost on modern Gentiles like us.

The kingdom of God was also the kingdom of David, whose throne would endure forever.  Jesus claimed to be the Son of David and Jews who recognized him as such believed him to be the rightful king of Israel (Palm Sunday) – although they did not understand the form that his kingdom would take.  Jesus specifically gave Peter the keys to His Kingdom, the kingdom of David.  What did that mean exactly?  In the Old Testament the keys to the kingdom were carried on the shoulder of the king’s steward.  The steward (what today would be called the first or prime minister) possessed authority second only to the king himself.  Isaiah recounted the change from one steward to another and said that what the steward opens, shall not be shut, or shuts, shall not be opened[56].  The steward’s judgment was backed by the authority of the king and was unquestioned in the kingdom.  In fact, many kingdoms had similar positions.  Joseph was appointed to a similar position in Egypt when the Pharoah told him that his command would be as though it were a command of Pharoah[57].  Jesus told Peter that the Church would be founded upon him and appointed him as his prime minister.  He then (echoing Isaiah) gave him the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.  In addition, he gave Peter a special promise that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church.  This also must be understood within the framework of the 1^st century world.  In Old Testament days, just inside the city gates there was a chair or seat.  The king, or his appointed judge, would visit the city and hold court and settle disputes while sitting on this seat.  The king would also gather his advisors there to take counsel and make plans for war.  When Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, he was opposing the Church, His Kingdom, against the gates or plans of the kingdom of Hell and promising victory for the Church. 

Jesus later gave similar authority to the Apostles but Peter remained their leader.  Peter is listed first in all of the lists of the Apostles in the Gospels and Acts.  Peter was present at every major event in the Gospels.  It was Peter that decided that the “office” vacated by Judas required filling (Acts 1).  It was Peter that led the preaching at the day of Pentecost.  Peter was the first to baptize Gentiles (Cornelius).  And at the council of Jerusalem, it was Peter’s authoritative statement that settled the dispute and determined the course of action (James talked last but whereas Peter spoke with the full authority of the Church and the Holy Spirit, James recommended some specific pastoral items to be included in the letter to Antioch).  When Paul went forth to preach the gospel, he first sought the approval of the apostles, specifically meeting with Peter for 15 days.  The apostles then received him into their fellowship and validated his authority to preach the gospel.

One very important aspect of the prime minister’s position was the fact that it was hereditary.  So long as there was a king on the throne of David, there would be a steward bearing the keys of authority for the kingdom.  From the very beginning Peter’s authority was recognized (even the fact that Paul argued with Peter show that he knew that Peter was the one who must approve his message).  Following Peter’s death, the office passed to a successor.  From the earliest writings after the Bible, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as that successor.  Clement (in 96 AD) was bishop of Rome at the turn of the century and he clearly exerted apostolic authority in his letter to the Corinthians.  Ignatius of Antioch, 10 years later, acknowledged in his letter to the Romans that the Church of Rome had the presidency of love over the whole Church.  Justin Martyr (150 AD) and Ireneaus of Lyons (180 AD) both recognized that the bishop of Rome had responsibility and authority over the whole Church and Ireneaus specifically stated that the bishop of Rome sits in the seat of Peter (reminiscent of the seat of Moses). 

But what about the popes and bishops who sinned?  Would the fact that they were not impeccable (without sin) prevent the Holy Spirit from working through them to safeguard the Gospel? 

Are the first five books of the Old Testament inspired by God and without error?  They were by the hand of Moses who had to flee Egypt after he committed murder.  Do you believe that the Psalms are inspired and without error?  They came from the hand of David, a murderer and adulterer.  What about Proverbs or the Song of Solomon?  Solomon allowed the worship of false gods in his own palace.  Do you believe that all the epistles of Paul were inspired and without error?  He was an accomplice to murder – of Christians no less.  What about the letters of Peter or the gospel of Mark, his disciple?  Peter denied Christ three times after being given the keys to the kingdom.  Protestants believe that it is possible for God to inspire murderers, adulterers, idolators, accomplices to murder, and traitors to write infallible Scripture yet it is impossible for Him to allow His Holy Spirit to guide sinful men to all truth and enable them to guard and correctly interpret the truth throughout time?  It seems that Protestant notions of infallibility are highly selective.

Whose Bible Anyway?

Aside from the fact that the Bible does not support the “Bible only” theory and, in fact, actually rejects it, this theory has an insurmountable problem.  If the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice then how does one know what books make up the Bible.  Secondary to this question is the problem of by what authority did Protestants remove 7 Old Testament books from the Bible – especially when the books were in the Jewish canon for 100 – 200 years before Christ and were universally accepted by the Church (both Catholic and Orthodox) for 1500 years.

The seven disputed books are 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch.  Catholics and Orthodox alike accept these books because they are part of the Greek Old Testament - the Septuagint - that was prevalent throughout the Jewish world of the 1^st centuries BC and AD.  The Septuagint was adopted in Alexandria under the direction of one of the Ptolemy’s (the line of Greek rulers that succeeded Alexander the Great).  He was collecting Scriptures from religions around the world for the famous library of Alexandria and asked 70 (thus Septuagint) Jewish scholars to assemble a canon of Scripture.  Before that time, there was not an official canon.  They assembled this canon and translated it into Greek.  It included the disputed books.

Some scholars actually argue that the Bible in Palestine in Jesus’ day consisted of Hebrew and Aramaic re-translations of the Septuagint.  This makes sense because, as commonly understood in the early Church, the Septuagint was the Scripture of the Apostles and Paul in use throughout the Roman world.  One glaring piece of evidence for the belief that the Septuagint was the Bible of Jesus and the Apostles is found in Mark 7:6-8.  In this passage, Jesus quoted Isaiah 29:13 but the exact words that he quoted from this verse are only found in the Septuagint.  They are not found in the modern Jewish Bible.  In fact, the notes found with many modern editions (such as the NIV) even point this out.

Between the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the turn of the first century, a group of Jewish scholars got together at Jamnia and reorganized the Jewish canon.  This was largely in response to two things:  first, the Sadducees’ rejection of the teaching of the Resurrection, and second, the rise of Christianity and its adoption of the Greek Septuagint.  The Sadducees were the sect that did not believe in any resurrection (remember their disputes with Jesus?) and some books (such as the Maccabees) are supportive of such a doctrine.  Thus, it was important for them to remove any books that might support the rise of Christianity (and the acceptance of the resurrection).  Eventually, this Jamnian canon became the accepted canon among Jews although it is likely that the Septuagint remained in use outside of Palestine for a long time.  In fact, to this day, Ethiopian Jews (and other scattered groups) who were long separated from Israel accept the Septuagint as the canon.  In fact, the whole celebration of Hanukah depends upon the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, so even if modern Jews have rejected their canonicity, they still rely on them for one of their major feasts.

For the next 1500 years, all orthodox (Catholic and Orthodox) Christians accepted the Septuagint and its Latin translation, the Vulgate, as the Bible.  The Council of Carthage (419) was the first council that identified a canon and it included all of the disputed Old Testament books.  The Council of Nicea (and later the Council of Trent) confirmed this decision.  The leaders of the Protestant rebellion (Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, and Zwingli), rejected the disputed books.  The Church of England remained ambiguous, often including them with the others but set apart in a special section called the Apocrypha. 

Several arguments have been advanced for rejecting the 7 disputed books.  I want to look more closely at two of the most important:

• They are not quoted in the New Testament:  This argument is blatantly wrong on several accounts. 

First, Jesus several times used the text from Sirach 27:6 which says that "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind."  Paul also alluded to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25.  Hebrews 11:35 points directly to 2 Maccabees 7.  In addition, Jesus and the disciples observed the feast of Hanukah[58].  The only record of God’s institution of this feast is in 1 and 2 Maccabees.  This is especially important when one considers Jesus’ words during this feast.  Jesus, standing next to the Temple, spoke of Himself being set apart by the Father just as Judas Maccabee “set apart” the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.  Jesus was treating that consecration of the Temple as a type of Himself in the same way that He earlier treated the Bronze Serpent of Exodus 16 as a type of Himself.  He made no distinction between the disputed books and the rest of the books.

Second, if one were only to include Old Testament books quoted in the New Testament as canonical then the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum must all be excluded from the canon.  Not one of these is quoted or alluded to by any writing in the New Testament.

• They contain historical and geographical errors:  Clearly, Judith and Tobit leave much to be desired from a geography (and probably historical) standpoint.  If they were intended to be history primers or world atlases then this would be a problem.  They were not.  They were stories intended to focus the believer on spiritual lessons, not to provide a history lesson.  Indeed, in the case of Tobit, the story was clearly meant to be a long parable as Tobit is designated as the uncle of a common fictional character in semitic literature. 

Martin Luther needed to reject these books because one of the major “proof” texts for the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead is found in the Maccabees.  Of course, Martin Luther also, at various times, wanted to leave James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations out of the New Testament.  He especially needed to exclude James because it directly contradicts his theory of salvation/justification.  In his preface to James’ Epistle, he said that it “is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works.”  Martin Luther was a prime example of “cafeteria-style” Bible study.  He picked and chose among the parts he liked (or that supported his pet theories) and rejected everything else.  

The irony of all of this is that Protestants profess to believe that only the Bible has authority for faith and doctrine.  This is the equivalent of the Titans and the Rams deciding that the Super Bowl will be played and only the NFL Rulebook will be used.  The teams decide that they will not accept the authority of the referees appointed by the organization founded to oversee football.  But if the NFL has no authority, then what good is the rulebook?  It has to be the referees and the rulebook – or it’s not the NFL.

Unless the Church had the authority to author the New Testament (which is nowhere commanded in the New Testament) and the authority to identify and authorize the canon, then what good is the New Testament and how can anyone agree on the canon?  Protestants often argue that there was substantial agreement early on as to which books were canonical and which were not.  Even if this is so, it is an appeal to an authority that Protestants do not recognize.  (Not to mention that, with the exception of the four gospels, the Church fathers disagreed about which other books should have canonical authority.)  The only times that the Church has exercised its authority, in council, to determine the canon, it included the disputed books (the “apocrypha”).  Protestants accept “Bible only” but cannot prove that what they have is the Bible - without resorting to some other authority which they don’t recognize. 

In addition to the problems of no Scriptural support and no ability to determine what books make up the Bible, the doctrine of by Scripture alone presents another critical question:  if Christ intended for the New Testament to be the only rule for faith and practice then why didn’t He command the Apostles to write it?  In fact, not only did He not do this, He did not even foretell that it would be written.

What the Church Teaches about Authority

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."  Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

-         orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";

-         - in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."  Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."  "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."  Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."  This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

-         "through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts"; it is in particular "theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth".

-         "from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience", the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."

-         "from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Salvation

Not “By Faith Alone”

Aside from “Bible only”, the other innovative doctrine of Protestantism is that salvation is by “faith alone”.  This doctrine contradicted what the Church had been saying about salvation for 1500 years.  That contradiction did not seem to bother Martin Luther.  When Luther was asked how he could know that he was right and the Church and the Church fathers were wrong, he said that salvation was so clearly taught by the Bible that a farm boy could understand it.  Really?  What does the Bible have to say about gaining eternal life?

Jesus on Salvation

What did Jesus say about how we could have eternal life?  In Mt. 25:14-30, He related the parable of the talents (or gold coins).  In this parable, Jesus laid out the working of salvation and clearly demonstrated that it is not by faith alone.  The master gave gold coins to three servants before he left for a journey.  The first was given ten coins and he invested them wisely and earned ten more.  The second was given five gold coins and he invested them wisely and earned five more.  The third was afraid that he might lose the 1 coin that he was given and that the master would be angry.  He hid his coin in the ground.  The master returned and demanded an accounting.  He was pleased with the first and second servants, telling them, "well done."  He was angry with the third servant who did nothing.  He ordered that his coin be taken away and given to the other two.

If the story stopped there it would be a nice passage about how we are supposed to use the gifts that God gives us for the good of His kingdom.  But it doesn't.  The master then ordered that the third servant be sent away and cast into the outer darkness. 

Like most parables, Jesus began this one with, "the kingdom of heaven is like."  He was revealing the working of salvation.  Each of the servants had faith that the master would return, yet faith alone was not enough to save the third servant.  Indeed, he was cast out of the kingdom of heaven because he did not act faith-fully.  He did nothing with the grace and the faith that he was given - he did not bear any fruit.  He was cut off and cast out.  Being able to show the returning master the coins was an essential aspect of the salvation of the three servants.  This parable unequivocally refutes salvation "by faith alone". 

Again, Jesus told us a parable about the king and his banquet (Matthew 22:1-14).  In this parable it is important to note that, even though all the guests who finally attended the banquet had invitations, and all of them had accepted the invitation, when the king found one who was not dressed appropriately, he was cast out into the outer darkness.  It is not enough to hear and accept the invitation.  We must dress accordingly by doing the will of the Father.

Repeatedly, Jesus talked about how we could inherit eternal life:

• Repent.
• Be born of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3)
• Eat His flesh, drink His blood (John 6)
• Believe in Him.
• Do the will of the Father.
• Forgive others.  In fact, if we do not forgive others we will be thrown into prison with the torturers until our entire debt is paid. (Matthew 18:34-35)
• Keep the commandments.
• Love God, Love neighbor
• Bear fruit or be cut off.
• Take up your cross daily and follow Jesus.
• Endure until the end.

None of these teachings of Jesus exclude any of the others, they are all necessary for our salvation and final sanctification before God.  In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus explicitly based salvation and our final judgment upon the works that we have done.  Those who enter into eternal life do so because they have fed the poor, clothed strangers, and visited the sick and those in prison.  Those who are accursed and sent into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels are those who did not do those things.  Jesus, of course, was not preaching that we are saved by works alone.  He was saying that those who are saved will be saved because they have performed works out of obedience to, love for, and faith in the Father.  Many will say, “Lord, Lord” only to have Him reply that He never knew them.  Only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven[59].  The proof of faith is works.  Without works, faith is dead.  The proof of love is obedience.  In fact, Jesus proclaimed that today salvation had come to Zaccheus’ house immediately after Zaccheus brought forth the fruits of his faith-full repentance by promising to give half of his possessions to the poor[60].. 

Paul on Salvation

Martin Luther arrived at his doctrine of salvation “by faith alone” by his innovative interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Romans.  In Romans, Paul repeatedly rejected the works of the Law and said that we, in the New Covenant, are saved by faith, not by the works of the Law.  Martin Luther misidentified “works of the Law” with all works. 

What did Paul mean by works of the Law?  Paul specifically mentioned circumcision, clean (kosher) food, and animal sacrifices.  In other words the works of the Law were associated with the Law that God proclaimed through Moses at Mount Sinai. 

To understand Paul’s teaching, we must look at why God instituted the Law in the first place.  The works of the Law were instituted in the first place because of Israel’s sin of worshiping the Golden Calf[61].  To punish Israel for turning its back on the God who liberated them from Egypt, God required them to sacrifice all of the animals that were gods/idols in Egypt.  This law was a law of death, a curse.  The new law of love lifted this curse.  In fact, this curse was lifted so that we could truly bear fruit for the Kingdom[62].

“By faith alone” ignores significant portions of Paul’s teaching in Romans.  Romans 2:5-11 tells us that God will repay each of us according to our works – eternal life to those who persevere in good works and damnation to those that do not.  The faithless works of the law do not yield salvation.  But the faith-filled works of the new law of love will be repaid with eternal life.  Our suffering and good works produce a hope that will not disappoint us[63].  Once Paul had gotten past the point where he was explaining why the Law of the Old Covenant is not effective for salvation, he went on to point to the importance of works.  Virtually the entire 12^th and 13^th chapters tell us to perform good works and avoid works of the flesh lest we die. 

So long as someone lives under the law of death, they are under the curse and nothing that they can do will justify them.  Once we are under the new law of faith, we can continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling – knowing that our works are rendered effective by the grace of God.  In fact, Paul is clear that we must “work” to achieve salvation.  We must run the race, stay the course, and endure until the end.  Paul goes so far as to say that the suffering that he endured would be added to Christ’s suffering for the salvation of the Church[64].  He was not saying that Christ’s sacrifice was not enough, but that we are given the privilege of participating in that sacrifice through the suffering that we endure and the works that we perform.  The works themselves actually count for something by the grace of God – they are not just evidence of faith.  In addition, Paul tells us that by enduring persecutions and afflictions we are made worthy of the kingdom of God[65].

Faith Alone?

Martin Luther asserted that we are saved by faith alone and went so far as to add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans.  In fact, the only place where the phrase “faith alone” occurs in the NT is in James – where it is explicitly rejected[66].

Jesus did not teach that we are saved by “faith alone”.  In fact, almost every time someone asked how to be saved, He told them to do something (a work).  Martin Luther definitely did not get this doctrine from the gospels. 

Paul did not teach that we are saved by faith alone, but by “faith working through love”[67].  He repeatedly exhorted Christians to work for their salvation.  What he rejected was the teaching of some of the Jewish Christians that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and live according to the Old Covenant.  He did not reject all works, only the faithless works of the Old Covenant.  In fact, not even all works of the Old Covenant were faithless as demonstrated by Hebrews 11.  That chapter lists many of the OT works accomplished by faith.

James said specifically that faith without works is dead[68].  If we have “faith alone”, we have nothing.  Jesus will say, “you did not do my works, depart from me, I never knew you.”

Salvation by Grace

We are saved by the grace of God alone.  The faith that we do have is a gift of God.[69]  Indeed, we cannot say that Jesus is the Son of God unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to us.  Not only is our faith a gift from God, but so are our works.  Both the desire and the ability to do works are gifts from God[70].  What God requires from us is cooperation – we must open the door, then He will come in and dine with us[71].  We must dress appropriately or be thrown out of the King’s wedding banquet.

Good, faith-full, Grace-inspired works and the faithful endurance of persecutions are not necessary to earn our way into heaven but they are necessary to prepare and equip us for heaven – to sanctify us and make us holy.  They are not necessary to please God but they are necessary to make us more like God.  We are to be perfect as our Father is perfect[72].  The life of faith and faith-full action brings us to this perfection.  God purifies us through the works that we do and the sufferings that we endure.  This effort to make us perfect, without blemish, culminates when we die and are judged.  At that point, every work that we have performed will be tested by fire and only some will survive[73].

Jesus was perfected through suffering and obedience.  He is the source of salvation to all who obey him[74].  If one who was born without sin was perfected by suffering and obedience, how much more necessary is it that we be perfected by suffering and obedience?  We have been reborn free from sin but we still carry the nature that kept us captive to sin in the first place.  We have been cleansed by the washing of water with the word but we must still put on the new man.

Salvation and Baptism

The normative (or normal, mandated) way to be washed free of sin is through baptism.  Jesus told us that we must be born of both the water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5).  The early Church fathers, the Catholic Church, and several Protestant churches have taught consistently to this day that this Scripture refers to baptism.  Indeed, it is set within the context of physical baptism (chapters 1 and 4).  Some have tried to argue that the word “water” refers to ambiotic fluid and physical birth but that is a stretch for the Greek and would be completely out of context. 

The prophet Ezekiel, in talking about the New Covenant that God would form with Israel, said that the sprinkling of water would wash away sins[75].  Paul was told to get up and be baptized and wash his sins away[76].  Peter said that baptism now saves us[77].  Many other Scriptures support the doctrine (taught universally throughout the Church for the first 1500 years) that baptism is regenerative and normative.  In other words, the Holy Spirit actually uses the water and the word to wash away our sins and, salvation, under normal circumstances, requires baptism.  Of course, Christ can save without baptism (for example, the thief on the cross) but the Church is required to preach the Gospel and baptize all nations.  In cases where baptism is impossible, we must trust to the grace of God.  Where baptism is possible, it is sinful to reject it or delay it (“what prevents me from being baptized?”[78]). 

Scriptural teachings on salvation seem to be conflicting in that some say baptism is required and some do not mention baptism.  That is why Christ left doctrinal authority with the Church and not with the Book.  The explanation of many Protestants is that “belief” is what is essential and baptism is just a “nice to have”.  Of course, if that is the correct interpretation of the verses that do not mention baptism then they really do conflict with the ones that say “believe and be baptized”.  We are then left with Scripture contradicting itself.

Scripture cannot contradict itself.  A more reasonable interpretation is not to take the minimal view but the maximum view.  To be saved you must believe and you must be baptized.  The places where “belief” is cited by itself assume a whole host of other things – including baptism, following Christ’s teachings, bearing fruit, enduring until the end, etc.  It is the same kind of “shorthand” that Paul used when he said “circumcision” but meant the entire Law or that Luke used in Acts when he said that they “broke bread” and meant that they celebrated the Last Supper. 

Salvation Can Be Lost

Salvation is not assured until we enter heaven.  Many Protestants (although I know that this does not include you) proclaim the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”.  This is directly contradicted by numerous Scriptural verses and an unbroken 2000 year chain of Church teaching.

• 1 Corinthians 9:27:  “No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.”, 
• 1 Corinthians 10:12-13: After spending the early part of chapter 10 (after 9:27) telling how Israel was repeatedly granted deliverance and grace from God yet they continued to backslide into adultery and were struck down in the desert. “Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.  No trial has come to you but what is human.  God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.”,
• Rev. 3:11: “I am coming quickly.  Hold fast to what you have, so that no one may take your crown."
• Romans 11:20-22:  Anyone can be cut off if they reject the mercy of the Lord – even if they once accepted it.

In summary, we receive faith by grace and the desire and ability to do works by grace.  The normative way of salvation includes baptism, faith, and works right up until we enter Heaven.

What the Church Teaches about Salvation

Justification

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism: [Rom 3.22; cf. 6:3-4]

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: [Cf. 1 Cor 12; Jn 15.1-4]

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Mt 4.17] Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man. [Council of Trent (1547): Densinger 1528]

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life: [Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529]

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight. [Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525]

Grace

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. [Cf. Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4]

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: [Cf. Jn 4:14; 7:38-39]

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself. [2 Cor 5:17-18]

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:" [St. Augustine, De gratia st libero arbitrio, 17: PL 44, 901]

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing. [St. Augustine, De natura et gratia, 31: PL 44, 264]

2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. [Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1533-1534] However, according to the Lord’s words—"Thus you will know them by their fruits" [Mt 7:20]—reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

Merit

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

Christian Holiness

2013 "All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity." [Lumen Gentium, 40, 2.] All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." [Mt 5:48]

In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints. [Lumen Gentium, 40, 2.]

2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle. [Cf. 2 Tim 4] Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes:

He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows. [St. Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. In Cant. 8: PG 44, 941C]

In Conclusion - Choose This Day!

Throughout the course of this letter, I have demonstrated my reasons for believing Catholic doctrine and rejecting the two main pillars of Protestant doctrine (“Bible alone” and “Faith alone”).  The ultimate question of course is where we stand and what that means to our salvation.  As Joshua challenged Israel, we must also choose this day where we will stand.

Choice 1 – “Hard Saying” or “Words of Truth”?

Jesus plainly stated that unless we gnaw on His flesh and drink His blood we will not have eternal life.  Many disciples rejected this teaching and said that it was hard to believe.  They left.  The Protestant churches have followed their lead in rejecting this teaching of Christ (even though many profess to accept the literality of the Bible) and His Church.  I would rather stand with the clear statement of Christ than with the convoluted arguments Protestants must make to reject it.  I would rather stand with Peter and say that Jesus’ words are “spirit and truth” then with the disciples who left muttering that this was a “hard saying” or with Barnes who says that it is absurd.  I would rather stand with all the early martyrs of the Church who understood that the bread and wine truly becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ than with the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews that thought it was ridiculous and persecuted them.  The choice on this issue is clear.  I would rather accept the straight-forward, literal interpretation of Christ’s teaching (and be in the company of those present that day, St. Paul, the early Church, and an unbroken 2000-year old line of teaching) than accept the mental gymnastics that Protestants have to go through to deny this fundamental Christian article of faith.  It is no more unreasonable or absurd to believe that God Incarnate comes to us in the bread and wine than that God the Creator came to us born of a virgin in the first place.  Especially, when it was this God Incarnate who told us so.

Choice 2 – “By what authority?” or “The foundation and pillar of truth”?

Jude warned Christians against the sin of Korah (Jude 11).  This sin was a rejection of the authority of Moses and thus a rejection of the God whom Moses was representing (Numbers 16).  It did not have a happy ending for the sons of Korah.  In fact, one of the major claims of Korah was that all of Israel was a holy nation and a kingdom of priests (based on Ex. 19:6) so who did Moses think he was anyway?  Protestants imply this same charge, that because all Christians are kings and priests, there should be no one with authority over them. 

Jesus preached with an authority that amazed the people (not as the scribes and Pharisees).  Jesus then told the Apostles that if anyone heard them, they heard Him, and if anyone rejected them, they rejected Him (Mt. 10:40).  Peter claimed to speak for the Church and the Holy Spirit.  Paul then said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.  Where is this authority today?  No Protestant church claims such authority.  Only the Roman Catholic Church claims to speak for Jesus in a manner that is binding on all Christians.  Protestants call this presumptuous – so did the scribes and Pharisees.  They said, “by what authority do you do these things?”  They said that it was blasphemous for Jesus to say that He forgave sins.  Protestants say the same thing about the Catholic Church’s claim to the authority to forgive/retain sins.  Once again the choice is clear.  Should we stand with those who question the authority clearly given by God or do we stand with the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Conclusion

I have tried to clearly and prayerfully account for the hope that is within me.  I hope that you have taken the time to prayerfully read this letter and look up the references that I have provided.  They are only a sampling of references but they are clear enough.  I owe part of my conversion to you.  You taught me to look at Scripture and you recognized at one point that the gifts of the Spirit would not cease with the death of the Apostles.  Of course, nothing passed away with the Apostles, including the authority of the Church.

                                                                        Love,

 

 

 

                                                                        Mark