Qui prius respondit quam audiat stultum se esse demonstrate

There is an interesting aspect to the story of my conversion to the Roman Catholic Church that most people do not know. It is widely known that I was once a member of the RPCUS, a small Presbyterian denomination, and that after years of study, reflection, and prayer, I finally found myself in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

What is not widely known is how exactly I became interested in studying the things that would cause me to question my previously unfailing devotion to Jean Chauvin. Before the Federal Vision controversy ever got started, there was a young man in a small Protestant mission in west Tennessee who had an insatiable love for the Bible and the Church. The pastor of that mission claimed to have the same love, but found himself hotly disagreeing with the young man on more than one occasion. But instead of having open and honest dialogue about the issues that separated the two, the pastor always cut the conversations short, accused the young man of impertinence, and demanded that the young man change his reading habits.

Probably one of the more frustrating aspects of this whole conflict was that, by all accounts, the young man had read more and knew more than the pastor did. But rather than do any reading himself, the pastor merely insisted he was right but could never make a compelling case of his own. The young man had been reading James Jordan, Douglas Wilson, and Peter Leithart. His voracious reading was starting to cause problems in the little mission, and the pastor phoned home for some help.

This started the RPCUS’ investigation into what would later be called “The Federal Vision”. After a brief (and I mean very brief) “investigation” into the movement, a list of resolutions was released condemning the teachings of the speakers at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference. When I saw this list of resolutions, it got me thinking about what I really believed. After much reading on both sides of the controversy, I was suddenly made aware of a whole litany of people and events that I never knew about, primarily because they existed or occurred prior to 1517. When I was opened up to a whole new world, about which I knew nothing prior, I was forced to do some serious reading and studying. And as you might imagine, this same thing led the young man at the Protestant mission to do the same. His search for something to satisfy his thirst for knowledge continued elsewhere. And when he found a deeper well in the Catholic Church, his story was hailed as proof of the errors of the Federal Vision.

His story became my story. The young man was Jay Dyer, who inadvertently became the cause for my conversion. Without his experience, I would not have ever been exposed to anything beyond my little sect in north Georgia. For this reason, should I make it to heaven, I will be indebted to him for all eternity.

Recently, after a long bout of studying and soul-searching, he now has left the Roman Church to seek communion with the œcumenical patriarchate of Constantinople. Whilst I am saddened to lose a Catholic friend, I refuse to condemn him or his motives. I remember all too vividly condemning a friend of mine for even looking into the Catholic Church some years back. How foolish it is to condemn without first hearing the whole story.

To-day, Jay remains a very large influence on me. When he left the Roman Church, I saw the criticisms flying. I saw the accusations of bad motives and instability. None of these will I give. Jay has, over the last year, exposed me to more than I could have ever expected to learn from all the traditionalist Catholics in the world. He has opened my eyes to the theology of the East, and more importantly, has shown me why it is such a critical issue for the Church to-day.

For years, I had been content with the arguments of Boëthius and St. Thomas de Aquin for absolute divine simplicity, but when I was presented with the Eastern view, I not only saw the differences between the two views, but also why the Cappadocian Fathers were so insistent upon the distinctions they were making. Since Jay recently announced his decision, discussions have been popping up literally all over the place, and I would like to make a few observations.

Firstly, I remain and am likely to remain a Roman Catholic until my death. But I also recognise that both the eastern and the western patriarchs are pushing for unity. Unity cannot happen and will not happen until the West takes the necessary steps to understand Eastern Theology.

Secondly, traditionalist Roman Catholics who base their entire theology on Ss. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas without consulting Ss. Athanasius, Maximus, Basil, and Gregory are not really qualified to enter into this discussion. Without doing the requisite reading, you simply cannot claim to have dealt with the force of the Eastern arguments.

Thirdly, though Thomistic philosophy is normative in the West, neither St. Thomas nor his beliefs are infallible. I appreciate heavily the contributions made by St. Thomas to Christian philosophy, but I am not of the deluded opinion that he was above error in his philosophies or works.

Fourthly, if you don’t even know the terminology in which the entire debate is framed, I really do not think that you are competent to have an opinion – pro or con – on the issue. Whilst I would not claim that I understand the issues completely, I understand enough to know that for me to rely exclusively on a few of the Scholastic philosophers is absurd if I am going to engage the Eastern arguments.

Finally, I will always count Jay as the best of friends, regardless of whether he stays with the oriental churches or if he returns to the Roman Church one day. In the numerous battles in which we are currently engaged in this country alone, I count him as an invaluable soldier to have by my side. So whilst I cannot follow him in his decision to leave the Catholic Church, I cannot and will not question his motives or attribute to him anything other than a desire to know and experience God more fully.

Episcopal Church Names Next Successor to Presiding Bishop

New York, NY – Yesterday morning, the American bishops of the Episcopal Church met in an unprecedented early conference and decided pre-emptively to elect a successor to the current presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori. Schori herself voted in favour of the next bishop and his immediate installation, claiming that he was “the most perfect match for the future direction of the Episcopal Church.” The votes were cast overwhelmingly in favour of Cthulhu, an ancient demonic god who has, for the last several millennia, been hidden in a subterranean cave in the south Pacific Ocean.

Cthulhu, a monstrous one-hundred-metre-tall cross between a cephalopod and a flying lizard, still cannot be reached for an interview in the sunken city of R’lyeh, though his supporters expressed staunchly that he would indeed be the perfect presiding bishop for the Episcopal Church. Many of those who voted for his seat seemed excessively ecstatic as they enumerated his many qualifications. He is described to have evolved millions of generations beyond any current notions of morality and has a well-developed reputation of exploiting the many generations of savages who have worshipped him since the dawn of human history in bizarre and macabre rituals. Furthermore, it has been said that just one look at his face will drive anyone to the point of utter insanity. When the election results were revealed, an echoing chorus of maniacal laughter sprung up from his foremost supporters at the conference.

Among the changes to be made when he takes office are a few minor changes in the liturgy, requiring a new issue of the Book of Common Prayer, which, unlike previous editions, will be largely based on the Necronomicon. In addition, the Apostles’ Creed will be removed entirely and replaced with three repetitions of the phrase: “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.” Jefferts Schori, when asked about these changes, replied, “For the past generation, the Episcopal Church has grown accustomed to increasing openness and change. These small changes will be hardly noticed by our congregants.” She added that for the first time since Thomas Cranmer, the Episcopal Church will actually have a presiding bishop who represents “all of [their] ideals collectively.”

Catholic Cardinals Condemn Prominent Israeli Rabbi

AP, Vatican City – The Roman Catholic college of cardinals met yesterday and arrived at an almost unanimous decision to sever all ties with Israel’s foremost rabbinic school after reports were released earlier this month indicating that one of the school’s chief rabbis was a Resurrection denier.

Rabbi Moshe Grenkewitz of the B’nith Shabbat School in Tel Aviv stated in a public address to a group of visiting students that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was “merely a mythical tale meant to convey a moral lesson” and that it has succeeded in popularity only due to the “excessive and fanatical proselytism” of Christianity’s followers.

At a press conference in Malta, speaking for the Catholic cardinalate, Cardinal Antonio Colombo stated, “These words are offensive to Christians everywhere, who have always viewed the Resurrection as a pivotal part of her long history. Such statements by the rabbi are certain to harm Jewish-Catholic relations and hearken back to the ancient persecutions of the Church.” He later stated that such remarks could be seen as an attempt to revive ancient sentiments against Christians and lead to such horrific events as experienced under Diocletian, or even Nero.

Rabbi Grenkewitz dismissed the Cardinal’s words as “nonsense” and expressed both disgust and amazement over the whole issue. “Jews have never believed the Resurrection. That’s what makes us Jews,” the rabbi stated in an interview on an Israeli news programme. He said that to think that just because Jews don’t believe what the Church teaches does not mean that they want to persecute Christians. “Since when do Catholics tell Jews what to believe anyway?” asked the rabbi, “We don’t tell them what to believe.”

The Cardinal, anticipating the rabbi’s comments, claimed that this was not over mere belief but a matter of recorded history. Resurrection denial has carried very stiff penalties in times past, especially in Spain, France, and Germany. The Cardinal closed his statements with grief, stating that the rabbi’s statements set back Jewish-Christian dialogues by almost two millennia.

RIGHT: Cardinal Colombo, representing the Catholic Cardinalate, addresses European reporters in Malta regarding the recent Vatican decision late Friday afternoon.

Patres, nolite ad iracundiam provocare filios vestros

Of my many shortcomings (I’m sure those of you who know me can name a number of them), one of my greatest weaknesses – especially as a father – is the shortness of my temper. Being a father of many children (children who are an awful lot like their father) can be very intensely frustrating at times. Honestly, most often my children are just being children and it is I who expect far too much of them.

For instance, it angers me to no end to come home from work only to find that they have destroyed a bunch of their toys and littered the remains all over the house. It drives me absolutely crazy to come home and see the horrible things that they have done to the house – especially when I just want to sit down and take a load off.

My short temper has long been a topic of discussion betwixt my wife and me, and I have known that it is a grave weakness and that if I do not attempt to curb it soon, my children will end up with some very serious problems down the road. Frequently I find myself in my morning prayer time resolving to be good to the children, begging for all the graces of God to come to my aid, crying out to Jesus for help and asking Mary to pray for me. Likewise, every time I enter the confessional I end up having to tell the priest what a rotten father I have been to my children. And over and over again, despite all the best advice in the world, all my prayers, and all my attempts, I still have seen myself as a failure.

Then one day my wife read to me the story of a child who drowned in a swimming pool when the mother had looked away for just a short time. He was two years old, and had permanent brain damage after the incident. His personality was gone, and he would be an invalid for as long as he lived. My heart sunk into my chest. I didn’t even know these people, but it didn’t matter. I could not even bear to think of something that serious happening to one of my own children. Then I considered the fact that things like this happen in God’s timing, and ultimately He is the one who is really in control. Furthermore, God’s timing for everything is a mystery – we don’t know when our own hour will come and how long we will be here in this life. I certainly don’t know how long my children will be here with me. God may chose to take them to-morrow for all I know. This may seriously be the last day that I have with them.

As these thoughts first swirled around in my head, I have to admit – rather painfully – that they had little to no effect on me or my attitude.

The next day was January 1st, which is a Holy Day of Obligation for Catholics: the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord. I had been up late the night before, and I really didn’t want to go to church that day. But I did anyway, and I took my three-year-old son along with me and left my wife and four daughters (who were mostly sick) at home. I was tired and I didn’t want to be there and my son kept doing really annoying things at very inopportune times. He would take the hymnals out, drop them on the floor, take off and put on his coat over and over again, and stuff like that. I was not in the mood at all and my fuse was running short.

The sermon was about allowing small, venial sins to go on unchecked whilst without our notice we suddenly found ourselves tolerating the serious mortal sins. I asked myself as honestly as I could, “Is this what I am doing?” I brushed the thought away and turned my attention again to my son, who was trying to stand up in the pew and look at the woman sitting behind me. When the sermon ended, I selfishly wondered how much longer it would be before the Mass was over.

Soon the Consecration came, which is the holiest, most solemn portion of the Mass. The entire congregation was silent as usual. The priest silently said the words of consecration, “This is my Body,” elevated the host and the bells were rung thrice.

I shivered as I realised that now Jesus’ presence was made manifest. Jesus, His precious Flesh and Blood, were there present with us in the sanctuary. Of course, this happens at every Mass, but this time it impacted me more than I can describe. I suddenly was overwhelmed with the fact that God, who loved His children so much, deigned to take upon Himself human nature – even to the point of death on a cross – all so that we might be saved. How much would our Father do to make sure that we could be with Him always and ever in eternity? He paid the ultimate price. Here I was, annoyed at my own son just for being a child. And I do not even know how long I will have with him.

Just as the bells were finished ringing and everybody had their heads bowed in adoration, I began to cry. And I looked over at my son – who was already looking at me – and I gave him a smile. Probably the first smile he had seen from me that day. And as he smiled back, he touched my face with his little hand. I hugged him and kissed him right in the middle of the service. I didn’t care if anybody thought it was awkward or strange. For the first time, I thought about what the Father’s love for us is, and what a failure I had been to my own children.

It has been four days since then, and I haven’t had to raise my voice even once to my children. I smile at my children, because I am glad to see them. When I see the messes they make, I can be happy that they are healthy enough to play with toys and I can use the time cleaning up their messes to reflect on the Passion of our Lord and the suffering He endured for our sake. When they fight with one another, I can be a peacemaker as opposed to the household law enforcement. When they are frustrated, I can be their comfort instead of their antagonist. Will I fail again as a father? Of course I will, but now I will never hear the words of the Consecration again without calling to mind the greatness of the Incarnation and Passion of our Lord and what it means for fathers everywhere: what it means to suffer and sacrifice so that your loved ones may be with you forever.

Hic est antichristus qui negat Patrem et Filium

Preface

In many of my various discussions regarding the Roman Catholic Church, I end up arguing points with folks from all backgrounds, including everybody from the not-so-distant “Orthodox” to fundamentalist Baptist and everybody in between. Few of these people still hold to the original doctrines espoused by the so-called Reformers, but some do, and talking with them is always interesting. In one of my recent discussions, I came across a nice fellow who believed (along with the rest of the RPCNA) that the Pope is Antichrist, and more specifically, the man of sin represented in St. Paul’s second epistle to the Christians in Thessalonica. He posed a challenge for me, to wit: that I prove from Holy Writ alone that the Pope – or, the succession of Popes – is not the “man of sin” spoken of therein. This alone, he explained, was his reason for rejecting the Catholic Church. The following post is based on my response to his challenge.

---

It must be said from the outset that I cannot prove to anybody that the Pope, or that all the collective bishops of Rome are not the singular “man of sin” mentioned in the Scriptures. The reason for this is the same reason that nobody can prove to me that he is (or they are), based on the Scriptures alone. One can offer his private opinion and I can offer mine, but at the end of the day, each man retains the prerogative of whom or what he will believe in terms of an interpretative scheme and why. Since I have no control over that, whether or not I have proven anything, always resides with the listener and with him alone. I might reverse the challenge and make my opponent “prove” that the Church that Jesus established was actually the many thousands of Protestant sects which would appear many hundreds of years later; at the end of the day, I would be the sole judge of whether or not he had proven this satisfactorily.

Secondly, proving that a singular Pope (the text does say “man” and not “men”) is the man of sin is not enough to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church since the Pope’s being Antichrist is certainly within the realm possibility. But more to the point, proving that the Pope is Antichrist is not enough, in itself, to demonstrate the claims of Protestantism. There are so many heretical sects (ones that even all mainstream Protestants would consider heretical) that are also in stark opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. The claim that the Pope is Antichrist could be accepted by Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox, Mohammedans, Mormons, Children of God, Swedenborgians, as well as many rural fringe charismatic sects.

Thirdly, there is a constant refrain that I hear regarding a great singular apostasy which is prophesied by St. Paul, and this apostasy is always accepted – prima facie – to be the corruption of the Roman Church. Yet history records hundreds of apostasies, all of which most Christians would also consider apostasies, to wit: Marcionism, Nestorianism, chiliasm, Donatism, Montanism, Eutychianism, &c. Demonstrating that an apostasy in fact took place does not prove de facto that “the apostasy” was that of the Roman Catholic Church. And the truth is that neither does it prove that Protestantism is the true religion. One must keep in mind that there are hundreds of current Restorationist Christian sects, all of which claim the exact same thing: that a great apostasy occurred within the Church, from which apostasy the Church would not recover for many centuries.

Saying that the Catholic Church began the apostasy is not enough to make the greater case – it must also be demonstrated that whatever sect you happen to hold is the true one. And there are thousands upon thousands of sects, all claiming to be the true restoration of the Church – the same Church which was destroyed or corrupted in the Roman Church. Let me name a few of them: Iglesia Ni Cristo, the Boston Church of Christ, the Church of God of Prophecy, the House of Yahweh, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, the Campellites and the Millerites, and Luz del Mundo. All of these sects make the exact same claims as the Reformed Protestant, yet possess completely different doctrinal standards. In the grand scheme of things, what is one more sect amongst so many? For me even to give weight to one particular brand of Restorationist Christianity, I then would have to evaluate every single sect that was ever born of men. Why? Because if the Church fell once, she can fall again, and the brand of Christianity that one accepts now may well undergo its very own apostasy down the road, requiring yet another Reformation, where everything previously thought to be true is shown actually to be false – based on the Bible alone, of course, or which ever books were decided still belong therein.

Specifically, what makes the claim of the Lutherans valid, but not that of the Mohammedans, Mormons, or Millerites? If one can entertain that the entire Church fell and nobody saw it happen, then I can maintain that any other particular sect did fell as well and then we would have to investigate the claims of every single Joe Schmoe who came along with yet a new reading of the Scriptures. And why would we have to do this? Precisely because we would believe in a Church that is capable of teaching error. There would be no pillar or bulwark of the truth – just we, alone in the desert with our Bibles, yet without anybody to tell us how to read them. This is, ultimately, the scenario being presented to me. All Protestants will vehemently deny it, but there really is no way out of this. If a Reformation can come along and undo everything before it – or even ninety per cent – then another Reformation can come along and undo everything that the first one did.

And now, given all the aforementioned caveats, I will attempt to deal with the text at hand. The claim is that St. Paul said that this Man of Sin would sit in the temple of God (i.e. the church). Yet just because the Pope sits in the Church does not automatically make him the culprit here. All Protestants – indeed, all men of Christian persuasion – can be said to “sit in the temple of God” as well.

Next, it is said that “he would claim to be God on earth.” Yet many, many men have made this foolish claim. And not many of these men who have made this claim have been Catholics, let alone the Pope. There is no such teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope is God on earth. The teaching is that he is the Vicar of Christ, which is hardly the same thing. He in a very real sense fills the same office as the Old Testament prophet who would speak to kings and say, “Thus saith the Lord.” The prophet was not claiming to be God on earth, but he did indeed act as God’s mouthpiece on earth. God uses mouthpieces all the time. Sometimes they are asses, and sometimes they are angels. But they are all God’s mouthpieces without taking away from His ultimate Deity.

Finally, it is claimed that this man of sin – the Pope, as the theory goes – “leads the apostasy, a falling away from the truth within the church.” But there were numerous accounts of these kinds of things, as I said above – why single out the Catholic Church, especially when Protestants by and large accept many of the dogmas that were taught by the Popes and the Catholic Church – even after this apostasy supposedly took place?

The Scriptures tell us specifically what the teaching of Antichrist would be, and no Pope has ever taught what the Scripture says that Antichrist would teach, to wit: that Jesus is not the Christ, denying the Father and the Son (cf. I John II:xxii). If a culprit is to be found for this teaching, there are many people who did this in the early days of the Church, and I have already named a few of them.

The main problem with this theory is that when I ask when it is that the Bishop of Rome became Antichrist, nobody ever has a specific answer, yet St. Paul says that all this rumpus would happen after a specific revolt followed by a singular revelation of a singular man. Very well then, what was this specific revolt? In what year did it occur? Who was the singular man, and whose identity was revealed of which the holy text speaks? I ask this because these things cannot be identified, I find nothing about the argument even remotely compelling.

Now the first great revolt that happened after St. Paul wrote his letter to the church in Thessalonica was the Jewish-Roman war, a great revolt, after which Nero took power (a.d. 66). He ruthlessly persecuted Christians, had the temple destroyed, and most certainly did see himself as a deity on earth. His megalomania was even observed by the heathen of his day.

And yet even after all of this, there is nothing in the text to indicate that an office, or a succession of popes is the singular “man of sin”. If one wishes to tell me which Pope it was, or which it will be, then by all means let it be known.

However, identifying which Pope it was will only present a whole new set of problems for the argument.

Should one decide that the Pope in a.d. 66 (St. Peter) was Antichrist, then that would not look too appealing, especially since he wrote some of the books of the Bible. If you pick his successor, St. Linus, that does not bode well either, because St. Paul speaks well of St. Linus in his epistle to the Romans.

Suppose it be St. Xystus – and he did reign around the time of the revolt of Bar-Kochba – but actually he did not do anything particularly man-of-sin-like. All we know that he did was to codify certain parts of the Mass. For instance, he did say that all the people have to recite the Sanctus together after the Preface. But that is hardly the behaviour for which we are looking in order to identify Antichrist. Then there is Pope St. Victor (a.d. 180), but he stood up for the deity of Christ Himself, and actually excommunicated a priest for denying it. By St. John’s own criterion, he fails to make the status of Antichrist.

One might go all the way to Pope St. Sylvester (as many often do, supposing that his name was actually Constantine), but Sylvester does not come after a large revolt. In fact, he and Constantine were around when the Edict of Milan was passed, when Christianity was legalised. After that, there is not a great deal to happen revolt-wise for a great season.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention that nearly all Protestants (and especially the Reformed type) accept the Œcumenical Councils at least up through the fifth century as being binding for doctrinal orthodoxy. All this brings us pretty late in the game for this great apostasy to have started.

And yet, in the mean while, hundreds of real, bona fide, historically-recorded apostasies had already occurred, but I am to ignore those. No, not just ignore them, but I am to side with the Catholic Church and accept her rulings at those junctures against those heretics. The Church slowly moves along, condemns Arius and Mani and Donatus – all well and good – but then at some point everything changes. Some huge cataclysmic event happens (but nobody notices) and suddenly the Pope is Antichrist, the Catholic Church is full of errors, and all of this happens to occur whilst evading recorded history and without sparking schism. Or even discussion. It just happened. And then all the events that led up to it and resulted from it were just washed down the Memory Hole.

I am forever curious as to where all the Bible-believing Christians were when this change took place. Did they all just hop right along down the path of perdition behind the great Whore of Babylon?

None of it adds up. Even so, I am willing to hear the various theories on this. I just cannot see how this can make any sense when analysed with any depth whatsoever.

But at the end of the day, the most obvious thing that sticks out is that the Scriptures say “man of sin” and not “men of sin”. The desire to turn the word “man” into the word “men” has a specific name I learnt in my Protestant high school systematic theology class: eisegesis.

Rescindentes verbum Dei per traditionem vestram

The Paleocrat, my good friend, brother in Christ, and godfather of my youngest daughter, has been doing a series of posts on a highly revered twentieth century Protestant apologist, Cornelius van Til. You can find those posts on his website. For my many years as a Protestant, I always greatly respected Cornelius van Til and found him to have discovered some of the greatest defences of Christianity. Indeed, I still argue for the Christian faith based on the general principles that he formulated.

But one aspect of van Til’s apologetic to which I was never exposed was his specific set of arguments for Protestantism, over and against the Catholic Church. I did not know anything about these at all until my aforementioned acquaintance began doing a series on his discussions of the Catholic faith. It was then that my opinion of him dropped considerably. Not only was van Til’s scholarship incredibly poor, but what became apparent to me so clearly was his absolute inability to articulate the teachings of the Catholic faith in any intelligible way. It was as if he heard what Catholics believed from B. B. Warfield, who learnt about Catholicism from C. H. Spurgeon, who learnt about the Roman Church from Ellen G. White, &c.

I was somewhat disappointed. I used to think of van Til as a confused, but honest Christian apologist. Now, I hardly can consider him anything other than yet another example of Protestantism’s endless supply of ignorant revolutionaries. And amidst all his blunders about Catholicism, comes this massive whopper of a statement that the Catholic Church “knows of no absolute authority such as Protestantism has in its doctrine of Scripture.”

What?

It is so incredibly laughable that a Protestant like van Til could be so ignorant as to utter such nonsense. Has he never heard of the infallibility of the Church? The immutability of Catholic dogma? The universal jurisdiction of the Pope? The necessity of accepting the Church’s dogmatic definitions under the pain of mortal sin and the loss of eternal salvation? Has he seriously never encountered the authoritative statements coming from the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Church?

But suppose that maybe he was only trying to make a rhetorical statement. Maybe he is making a deeper statement about the unchangeable nature of Scripture and its unbending rule in contradistinction to his understanding of Catholic dogma which appears to him to be capricious and based on the whims of men – subject to all forms of change depending on all manner of circumstances. Indeed, maybe that is his point. But if we were to press this issue, what would we find?

Well, for one, we would see that giving Scripture alone this much authority does nothing to establish any sort of objective system of morality or dogma. As if this even needed to be stated, one man’s heresy is another man’s dogma, and they could both be looking at the exact same texts when coming to their conclusions.

In the beginning of any apologetic discussion, the more hard core Reformed Protestants will always try strongly to impress their opponent regarding the absolute authority of the Scriptures and how expansive and demanding it is. But at the end of a long discussion when the problems with this model are pressed, he usually ends up making the ridiculous claim that “the Church” is actually comprised of so many thousands of Protestant sects, and that none of them actually have the full truth regarding the teachings of Holy Writ. Indeed, when one accepts that none of these thousands of sects that all supposedly comprise the Church agree on what the Scriptures principally teach, he must then admit that one need not even interpret the Scriptures correctly for salvation.

Some great authority indeed! “The Scriptures are the only infallible rule!” the revolutionary shouts.

But at the end of the day, nobody cares about this infallible rule, because it does not matter what anybody thinks the Scriptures teach. Take the doctrine of Holy Baptism, which the Bible says is a basic, rudimentary doctrine of the Christian faith (cf. Hebrews VI:ii). Do you believe that you should baptise babies? Think they should wait until they are adults? Should you use the Trinitarian formula? Use only the name of the Lord Jesus? Should baptism be done by immersion or by sprinkling? Does baptism regenerate? Should you confess your sins committed before baptism? Is baptism necessary for salvation? Who can baptise validly, a minister only or a layman as well? What is the function of baptism in the life and salvation of a soul?

The kicker to this is that the answer to any of these questions could be whatever you want them to be and a Protestant will say, “No big deal.” So the Scriptures are the only infallible rule, but it does not matter what you think they actually say or mean. The only thing that matters is if you believe that the Scriptures are the only authority. This is tantamount to Parliament saying that every man may do whatever he wants as long as he believes his actions have been warranted by British law.

*              *                *

defendant i stands before the bench between the officers of the court.

judge: Sir, you have been accused of robbing a pub at gunpoint. The law condemns such actions with severe penalties.

defendant i: I did no such thing. And I care not what penalties the law may have. I’m innocent of all such accusations. Besides, the law is just a human construct anyway.

judge: The court will hear the testimonies of th– What have you said about the law?

defendant i: I only was making a statement in passing, your Worship. I am innocent of the charges that have been brought against me.

judge: Your questioning of the law shall not go unpunished. At this point, I no longer care about the paltry robbery charges. If you were guilty, you would have to pay a stiff fine, but a denial of the absolute authority of the law is a capital offence.

defendant i: But I’ve committed no crime!

judge: Your rejection of the law as the only absolute authority is your crime. Off with his head!

defendant i is escorted out by the officers of the court. defendant ii approaches the bench.

judge: Sir, you freely admitted to a constable that you murdered a man in cold blood.

defendant ii: Yes, your Worship, I did. But I believe that the law allows me to do so with immunity.

judge: Ah, yes. Well, you’ve a point, sire; I previously thought, based on your actions, that you rejected the law altogether. It seems that you do in fact affirm the authority of the law after all. You are free to go, good man.

defendant ii: God save the Queen.

*              *                *

It has always been somewhat of a stumper for me. The Protestant will say that he is not a Catholic and believes the Catholic Church to be a false Church because she teaches error, but then will go on tolerating the most absurd errors in the world from every Protestant sect not his own (and sometimes from his own as well) on the grounds that doctrines do not matter anyway, provided that they believe the Bible is the sole authority. Some authority indeed. The Word of God is nullified by their traditions.

Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos

I have not had much opportunity lately to write, nor have I had occasion to do so since we have mined out so many apologetic topics here. In fact, the myriads of equestrian corpses with post mortum blunt trauma wounds are stacked so high that it is likely to drive away all but the most determined apologist, Catholic or Protestant.

But recently, I have seen something come up more than once which really drives me to ire and is something I have decided to address. The broader topic is the Catholic practise of closed communion, something that has been practised in the Church since the earliest days. And in spite of the many objections often made by Protestants, the fact is that all but the tiniest minority of Protestants practise it. Protestants will not hesitate to bar Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mohammedans, &c. from their table. True, most Protestants would allow fellow Protestants to commune with them, but they all (with the exception of the extremely liberal Episcopalians) draw the line somewhere.

Nevertheless, these same Protestants, when confronted with the Catholic practise of closed communion, object vehemently, insisting that all Christians should be allowed to take the Sacred Host at a Catholic Mass. What is their reasoning? Most of them insist that we are all part of the same religion and therefore should all share the same Sacraments. Following this line of reasoning, all baptised peoples should be equally admitted at everybody’s version of the Eucharist, be they Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox, &c.

But from the earliest days of the Church, there were many people who possessed valid baptisms who were denied the Catholic Sacraments for their unreconciled public sins or their association with hereticks or schismatics. The ancient teaching of One, Holy, Catholick, and Apostolick Church is foundational to understanding this. Not everybody who is baptised is automatically in the Church regardless of what he believes or does. And despite what the Protestant and Catholic false œcumenists say, the Catholic religion and the Protestant religion are not the same religion. As if this needed demonstration, here are a list of things that the few Protestants I have in mind most assuredly reject in the teachings of the Catholic Church:

• We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Unam Sanctam]
• We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful. [Fulgens Corona]
• We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. [Pastor Æternus]
• There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. [Fourth Lateran Council]
• By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. [Constitution Munificentissimus Deus]
• An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Now these doctrines are not mere side issues. These doctrines are central to salvation, dogma, truth, and the person of Christ. These are issues over which Catholics and Protestants disagree substantially and cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant or unimportant. One question immediately comes to mind. Why in the world would a Protestant who denies such things vociferously even want to have Sacraments from a religion who believed and taught all of these things, and taught that they must be believed for salvation?

One such Protestant, Jon Amos, writes:

I tend to think as charitably as possible of [Catholics]…to the extent that I try to forget that there are actually Catholics out there, like you, who zealously cling to the worst and most dangerous-to-body-and-soul of Catholic errors.

Of course, part of being a Catholic is believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If I wanted to be a Protestant, I would not have gone through the trouble of being reconciled to the Church. According to Mr. Amos, however, the only truly faithful Catholics are those who reject the Church’s teachings. For more on this, read his comment here.

Mr. Amos continues:

That said, my position is – and has been for some time – that Holy Communion is what it is, regardless of what Catholics say it is or believe it to be. And it’s for this reason that I receive without hesitation whenever I go to a Catholic Mass (rare as that may be). I know it’s against the rules, but the rules are against Jesus’s rules, so screw them. I also know that there are probably folks there (including even maybe the priest) who, like you, are wilfully committing idolatry, but that doesn’t make the Mass idolatry, just as an idolater performing Holy Baptism doesn’t make the Baptism idolatry.

It is hardly even believable. This man obviously has little respect for the Catholic faith, less respect for Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and finally, no respect for the laws of the Church. Now I ask you, why would any such soul who had so much scorn for the Catholic Church want anything to do with the Catholic Mass? Let us suppose that Jon Amos is correct and that the Catholic Church teaches bad and dangerous “body-and-soul” heresies, and that Catholics are idolaters as he believes. Where does Jesus ever say that you should involve yourself in the rituals of idolatrous hereticks?

He does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, neither about herself, nor about the Sacraments, nor about salvation, nor about anything. Yet he insists that the Catholic Mass is “Jesus’ meal” and that both he and every other soul on the planet are entitled to eat it. Why does he even think it is the same religion as his? On a side note, I wonder why he just does not become Catholic if the “faithful” Catholics reject the Church’s teachings? Of course, I know why – he does not believe the teachings of the Church and obviously acknowledges the folly of joining a religion with which you do not agree. So why he continues to insist that the Catholic Church is the same religion as his is beyond me. By his own words, they are not even close.

If my church is celebrating the meal that Jesus instituted for His whole church and you can’t receive with us, our divisions are being deepened, not healed. Our Lord has given us this wonderful sacrament – a meal that is (among many other things) powerfully, mysteriously unifying, but, no, we know better than Him. What a shame. If it’s Jesus’ meal for all of His people, and if we recognize one another as brethren, we must be able to commune together.

This is what continues to baffle me. The Catholics do not think that you are part of His people, and historically Protestants have denied that Catholics are part of His people. There is one tiny minority here, a veritable church-of-one that has asserted his own authority in all these matters, declaring that what he believes and only what he believes are “Jesus’ rules” and that all others are guilty of dividing the Church.

What the Catholics think of the Sacrament is extremely different from what he thinks it is, yet he continues to insist that they are really the same. And amidst all this inane double-talk is the absurd claim that everything he is espousing is really Jesus’ teaching.

Yet Mr. Amos insists, against every rational cue:

…if the priest won’t serve me, I’ll go get in another line, mumbling to myself, “Bullshit. This is not your table, man. This is Jesus’ table.”

One thing here is for sure: it is not your table either, Mr. Amos. The priest who denies you the Sacred Host is merely being faithful to his bishops and to his Church. By your theft of the Host, you are not being faithful to anyone or anything other than your own precepts, which have no place in the history of the Church and no place in Catholic theology.

I do not expect you to become Catholic, or to change your position on the Church, or anything else. But if the Catholic Church does not allow you to receive her Sacraments because you are not Catholic, the absolute very least you could do is show some decency and some respect for the Church. Your ecclesial community probably does not allow its own share of things in its liturgy. I would never dream of showing up to disrupt your worship in any way, or do things contrary to what your sect allows. I may not agree with anything which your sect does, but interfering with another person’s religion is just rude.

Stealing the hosts may make you a progressive in your own mind, but it does nothing to further Church unity. If you want unity in the Church, pray for unity and encourage your bishops to seek dialogue with the Catholic Church. Please do not profane Catholic Sacraments as a means to unity. There are legitimate means to promote unity amongst Christians. This is not one of them.

Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventri tui, Jesus

Preface

I originally hesitated to write this post because the subject of the post is so sensitive and the one to whom I am responding in this post is a man I love and cherish very much, my father-in-law, Rev. Steve Schlissel from New York. If he does decide to read this, he should know that this post is written by somebody who not only loves him dearly, but admires him and looks up to him for many of his character traits. So whilst nothing is intended to be given or taken personally, it is inevitable that some may see it this way. Nevertheless, I write this with a spirit of charity and not hostility. I do disagree with him vehemently, but that should say nothing of my opinion of him personally.

---

In a recent post on his blog, Rev. Schlissel writes at length about the Roman Catholic “idolatry” of Mary. He asserts that if Mary were to be included in the Godhead – a “Quadrinity” he calls it – that nothing in all of Roman Catholic faith or practise would change. Either he is grossly ignorant of the actual practise of the Church, or this is simply inflated rhetoric. I cannot imagine him to be so ignorant of Catholic worship on this matter, so I will assume that it is just rhetoric. And as a rhetorical device, it conveys that he thinks that we honour Mary too much, and that is understandable from his perspective, but for those who actually are ignorant of Catholic practise, there are some things they ought to know.

The Mass, which is the highest form of worship for Catholic Christians, has only one object: the Holy Trinity. In the Novus Ordo Missæ, Mary is mentioned only twice: in the Confiteor (along with a list of other saints and apostles) and in the Nicene Creed. Surely nobody could object to those things. Even in the Traditional Latin Mass, Mary is mentioned only six times, once in the Nicene Creed, and all other five times she is listed with groups of other saints. She is absent from the Roman Canon, absent from any invocation of the Holy Trinity, and absent from the Eucharistic liturgy altogether.

So to say that nothing would change if she were part of the “Quadrinity” is utter nonsense. It would change so much of the Catholic practise that I cannot even imagine where to start. Even the Rosary would have to change since no longer would we be asking for Mary’s intercessions, but rather praying the “Our Mother”.

His claim is that Catholics worship Mary, and in a sense this is absolutely correct. There is a sense in which it is not correct, but that does not take away from the fact that there is a sense in which it is. The word worship means simply to render to that which is worthy. King David was worshipped by one of his subjects in this passage from the Bible:

And going out he worshipped the king, bowing with his face to the earth, and said: Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said to him: To buy the thrashing floor of thee, and build an altar to the Lord, that the plague, which rageth among the people, may cease. (II Kings XXIV:xxi)

Are we to understand that this man idolised David or merely that he rendered the honour which was due to him? Clearly the latter is the case. The virtuous woman is to be praised (Proverbs XXXI:xxx), and what woman on earth possessed as much virtue as the Mother of God? Is it not fitting then, to worship her the same way that Gabriel did when he saw her and called her blessed amongst women?

Something here ought to be said about the Protestant’s understanding of worship. A Protestant accuses a Catholic of idolatry because we honour Mary in the same way that they honour God. Why is this? It is because for the Protestant, his highest form of worship involves sitting on his posterior for two hours whilst a man takes centre stage, and talks about his views of the Bible for seventy-five minutes, followed by a song or two and maybe the passing of a collection plate. And that is it. The Protestant will have no problem telling you that he has no altar, no sacrifice, no incense, no nothing. Just a long time of listening to a man in a business suit talk about his opinions. And that is their highest form of worship.

Since we might honour Mary with things slightly more glorious and substantially less boring than that, we are accused of idolatry. But the Mass, the highest form of Catholic worship, is reserved for God alone, and for nobody else. And it is a sacrifice on an altar to the Most High God – if anyone dared to do this for Mary, he would be rightly accused of idolatry. But has any Catholic ever done this? Ever? Not to my knowledge. Based on the anecdote provided, I see no idolatry, only devotion and love.

Take a moment and look at a common way of honouring men in our culture. Suppose a man serves for fifty years as a distinguished professor at a prestigious academic institution, and upon his retirement, his fellows throw a grand ball in his honour. One might imagine a time of socialisation in the main hall, followed by the singing of the Alma Mater, a few short speeches by his closest colleagues, a long keynote address, a time for a collection to his charitable foundation, and ending with a round of “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow”. And all of this would be entirely appropriate for a man of great accomplishments. And it differs little – if it indeed differs at all – from the Protestant concept of worship.

So Rev. Schlissel has been to a May Crowning. What sacrifice was given to Mary? None at all. Was she blessed and praised for her virtue? I should hope so, as that would be a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Yet, notice the flurry of criticism even when she is honoured as the Bible says that she should be honoured. From whence does this irrational hatred of our Mother come?

So whilst he is shaking his head wondering where we Romanists get off honouring the Blessed Mother, we shake our own heads at the myriad displays of ahistorical belief and practise within the Protestant sects.

Finally, regarding the Salve Regina, one of his commentators said that the prayer was Christocentric. To which he replied, “However, the veracity of your own claim about the Christocentric nature of the Salve Regina is doubted. In support, I will simply include the English translation in which Christ is incidental and at best an indirect object.”

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,

our life, our sweetness and our hope.

To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;

to thee do we send up our sighs,

mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,

thine eyes of mercy toward us;

and after this our exile,

show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V: Pray for us O holy Mother of God,

R: that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Actually, the indirect object of the central petition of the Salve Regina is the faithful, whilst the direct object is Christ: “[Mary, subject] Show unto us [the faithful, indirect object] the blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus [direct object].” The prayer is highly Christocentric. The entire purpose for Marian devotion is summed up beautifully in this wonderful hymn: we follow Mary so that we may be led to Christ, just as St. Paul said to the church in Corinth: “Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.” He followed Christ, and he hoped that others would follow Him to reach the same goal. Is it such a stretch to see that our Blessed Mother, like all mothers, functions to lead her children to Jesus?

Adam vero cognovit Havam uxorem suam quæ concepit

Preface

This post will attempt to cover a large amount of material in a relatively small amount of space. By large, it is meant that the topics which are covered and the various sources drawn from consist of an infinite gold mine of truth and a wellspring of useful application. That said, it is important to make a few acknowledgements before continuing since the bulk of this work can hardly be called original. There are several insights that are original, but mainly this work is an attempt firstly to bring together many pieces of instruction gleaned over the years and secondly to consolidate them into a single work and provide Scriptural references where they are applicable. Thus, the rôle of the present writer has been as a compiler and commentator, not as an original thinker. All the people who have influenced this work cannot possibly be listed, but a few of them are: Christopher West, John Martignoni, Pope John Paul II, Anicius Boëthius, Søren Kierkegaard, and the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. After having thought about this topic and searching the Scriptures for some time, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has become newly illuminated. It is hoped, dear reader, that if nothing else, it does the same for you.

---

Anybody who has spent any amount of time whatsoever studying the history of the Church knows how foundational, central, and pivotal the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity has been in Christianity. If Christianity could be summed up in a single doctrine, the Trinity would be the one. The Trinity is not merely a doctrine of God, it is a veritable living portrait of the universe in which we live. The Trinity is a picture of life that provides insights into every aspect of our beings as humans made in the image of God. It provides us with principles as to how we may understand ecclesiology, philosophy, sociology, political theory, psychology, and even economics. Christian writers have applied the Trinity to so many aspects of life, the examples are endless.

I will list just a few examples briefly for those who may not be familiar with this concept. The doctrine of the Trinity reflects the composition of the Church: the Church is one, yet the Church has multiple members (cf. I Corinthians XII:xii, Romans XII:v); likewise God is One, yet is three Persons. The Trinity reflects the composition of man: for a man is one, yet possesses body, soul, and spirit. All analogies of the Trinity break down at some point, but the truth is that the number of imperfect analogies for the Blessed Trinity is limitless. We see the Trinity reflected everywhere we look, and yet as much as we may try to plumb its depths, we can never exhaust its treasures anymore than one could contain the vastness of the oceans within a common pail.

The doctrine of God states that God is omniscient. He knows all. He knows everything as perfectly as anything can be possibly known. This means that prior to the creation of the universe, God eternally knew Himself perfectly. It should be noted that perfect knowledge is not without consequence. Notice what the Scriptures say about the first man’s knowledge of his wife:

And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God. (Genesis IV:i)

Amazing! Adam’s knowledge of his wife resulted in conception. Adam’s knowledge of his wife brought forth life. Adam’s knowledge of his wife was an act of creative love. Indeed, Adam’s human knowledge was none other than an act of love for the woman to whom he was betrothed. But notice that this perfect knowledge not only created life but also united Adam to his wife, making the two “one flesh” (Genesis II:xxiv). This state of being one flesh does not destroy the individuality of the persons becoming one flesh. The two are still separate persons, yet have become one through perfect, intimate knowledge.

Already one can see the similarities to this and the Trinity, but let us take this a step further. What was the result of God’s perfect knowledge of Himself? If perfect knowledge always results in conception, the result of God the Father’s eternal knowledge of Himself was none other than the eternal conception of God the Son. The Scriptures teach us that God the Father is the Lover (cf. St. John III:xvi) and that God the Son is the Beloved (cf. St. Matthew III:xvii). The result of this perfect Love, i.e. Knowledge, is the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost.

Allow me to recap and make a few observations before continuing:

1. God’s knowledge is of Himself is truly an act of perfect Love, since God is Love (cf. I John IV:viii).
2. God’s perfect knowledge of Himself resulted in the eternal Conception of His Son.
3. God’s Conception of His Son was brought to fullness in the Incarnation (St. John I:xiv, Galatians IV:iv).
4. The Incarnation was God’s gift of Light (cf. St. John VIII:xii) and Life (St. John VI:xxxiii) to the world.

In summary, God is Knowledge is Love is Unity is Conception is Life is Salvation*. Just notice, for instance, how beautifully Jesus ties all these concepts together in His prayer to the Father:

I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me. (St. John XVII:xxiii ff.)

Notice again how knowledge, life, adoption as sons, and love are all tied together by St. John:

Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and should be the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth not us, because it knew not him. (I John III:i)

Now let us return to the man and woman who have become one flesh. When God created man and woman, He did so with distinct purpose – to reflect His image. Do not the Scriptures say that God declared, “Let us make man to our image and likeness”? But just a little later the Scriptures say, “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” Now God is not two genders; He is not a man and a woman. So what is meant by these truths? What is meant is that a man and a woman reflect the image of God in that in the perfect and intimate knowledge of one another, life is created.

What an incredible purpose! Truly man is the glory of God’s creation (Psalm VIII:vi ff.). Here we have the opportunity to share in the glory of the Blessed Trinity through the bond of Holy Wedlock. If a Sacrament is something that physically pictures a spiritual reality, and is something that is a conduit of grace in the lives of Christians, who then can deny that Holy Matrimony is indeed a Sacrament? To deny the wonderful portrait of God’s nature in this blessed union is folly of the worst sort.

This truth comes with serious consequences for Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity. In what way is it reflecting the perfect glory of God’s goodness, love, and knowledge to inhibit – purposefully and intentionally – the creation of life in the marital embrace? In what way do a man and woman reflect the Trinity when they wilfully prevent the conception of a child? How does that reflect God’s purpose in creating us male and female?

Consider for a moment now the perfect Love that Jesus Christ has for His bride, the Church. He loves the Church so much that He gave Himself up for Her. His perfect love is the greatest life-giving act in the history of humanity. His body, broken and wounded, He gave up for us. He is the Bread of Life, “Take and eat,” He says, “This is my Body” (St. Matthew XXVI:xxvi). What if Jesus gave us the Bread of Life, His precious Body and Blood, but withheld its life-giving aspect from us? He said that whosoever would eat His flesh and drink His blood would have everlasting life (St. John VI:lv). But what if He gave us these things, but chose to prevent us from receiving life from them? To what avail would that Eucharist be? It would be false, it would be a lie, and would result in the loss of salvation to the world.

So how is it then that the world can look upon the creation of life with such disdain? It is because their father is the Devil, who has lied from the beginning (St. John VIII:xliv). The devil loves death and hates life. So on whose side are you? Would you prefer the instantaneous pleasure of selfish release over the opportunity to reflect the life-giving unity of the Blessed Trinity? Do you want to withhold your life-giving force from your wife, or do you want to love your wife in the way that Christ loves the Church and gave Himself up for Her? Can you imagine God not providing the world with a way of salvation, or a Saviour who decided to refrain from giving His life to His Church?

Are not such things inconceivable?

---

* One could go into an argument for Absolute Divine Simplicity here, but it is likely that the Easterners are already going to turn this essay into an occasion to thrash the Filioque, so the argument will not be pressed further.

Omnia ergo quæcumque dixerint vobis servate et facite secundum opera vero eorum nolite facere dicunt enim et non faciunt

Preface

After a long and somewhat fruitful Lenten season (and now more than half-way into Paschaltide), I feel that I am now able to return to some serious writing here. Some of you have expressed interest that I continue writing, whilst I have – on many occasions – considered closing down this place. I think that in the long run, I will keep it going, though I cannot say how often I will post something. In the post below, I am mostly speaking to Catholics, since they, of all Christians, oftentimes  give me the hardest time about certain issues. But I also have some Protestants in mind who may, because of the perspectives of these Catholics, be confused about what is required of a Catholic.

---

Part of being a Catholic is communion with the Bishop of Rome. Part of being a Catholic is believing that he is infallible when he addresses the whole Church on matters of faith and morals. Part of being a Catholic, or at least being a good Catholic, is rendering obedience to the Pope and to the bishops of your diocese. And part of being Catholic is respecting the offices of those ecclesiastical officials of the hierarchy, even if we do not have much respect for those people holding them.

These concepts have long been part of the Catholic understanding of the Church. In the fourth century – in a time probably not unlike our current situation – there were those who saw the rampant impiety on the part of the members of the Catholic Church. They wanted a purer Church – a Church that followed through in real life what they believed on paper. In short, they wanted a Church without sinners. These people were called Donatists, and they believed that a priest’s Sacraments were only as good as his personal piety.

Now I have no doubt that the Donatists were mostly very pious people. I have no doubt that their intentions for the Church were very noble. But by confusing the offices with the officers, they made a grave error and left the Church because of their obstinacy in refusing to recognise this error. The fatal error of the Donatists was that the true author of the Sacraments is not the priest or the bishop, but Christ Himself. The priest is only the intermediate vessel of God’s grace. Sacraments are valid based on the office of the priest which, being established by Christ, is holy and sacred. Those holding the office have the power and authority to confect Sacraments in the name of Christ regardless of whether or not they are pious men.

In no way am I justifying the impiety of certain priests or bishops. But if my child were to receive a baptism from a sodomite priest, it would be a valid baptism. If my children were to be confirmed by a simoniac bishop, it would still be a valid confirmation. And if I received viaticum and final absolution from a liberal priest who believed in women’s ordination and abortion, it would be valid, assuming that his orders were valid.

Many have noted recently that I am highly critical of many members of the hierarchy of the Holy Roman Church. Indeed I am and I am not ashamed of it. Some wonder how I can truly consider myself to be a Catholic and still be so critical of my local ordinary bishop, the priests in my diocese, the American cardinals, and the Pope himself. The short answer to all of this is that nothing in Catholic teaching demands that Catholics approve of the actions of the hierarchy in order to be good Catholics.

You might expect that those who pester me the most about this are Protestants, but actually it is Catholics. I hear very frequently that I am guilty of misinterpreting the actions of the Pope, or not extending charity to the bishops, or misjudging their intentions. And these might all be true. I do not think they are, but I am certainly willing to grant that they might be. I am certainly not above making these errors. But Catholics – of all people – ought to know better. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the phrase “more Catholic than the Pope” directed toward people who would dare to criticise anything the Pope ever did.

One prime example is how three of the last four Popes have had amazing penchants for praying with people of false religions in pagan temples, praying with anti-Christs in synagogues, celebrating pagan ceremonies, and engaging in idolatrous acts of animal worship with priestesses. All of these things are forbidden, immoral, and scandalous. And they ought be even more severely condemned if of all people the Pope is the one doing them. The Second Vatican Council did not suddenly authorise people to go into places of worship belonging to false religions. And just because the Pope did it does not make it right.

It is at this point that I hear somebody throw out the aforementioned phrase, accusing me of thinking that I am more Catholic than the Pope, or that I am misunderstanding his œcumenical gestures.

What possessed people to start unquestioningly accepting everything the Pope does as moral? I am not familiar with any part of Catholic tradition that includes this bizarre precept. How is it that so many people have forgotten about all the examples in the Sacred Scriptures and in history of saints rebuking Popes (to the face, even) and being recognised later on by the Church as great saints and warriors for Christ? Did not St. Paul rebuke the very first Pope because of his sin? Are we not thankful to St. Irenæus for respectfully telling Pope St. Victor to refrain from excommunicating the eastern sees? Is not St. Catherine of Sienna venerated for her unwavering stand against a Pope who refused to leave Avignon?

I shudder to think of what Catholics who practically worship the current Pope would have been like at the time surrounding the Protestant Reformation. As soon as news hit the press that Alexander VI had multiple illegitimate children with several women, these people would be the first to celebrate the “œcumenical gestures” that he was giving to these women. Perhaps they would look down on people who chose to be faithful to their wives, or priests who kept their vows of celibacy and would have accused them of being “more Catholic than the Pope.” Who knows?

If it is a mortal sin for Catholics to pray with people of false religions, then it is a sin for a Pope to do it. Indeed, it is even a greater sin for a Pope to do it because of the office he holds. And if I refrain from praying with people of false religions, then that does, in a sense, make me more Catholic than the Pope. If the Pope sits by idly whilst entire dioceses are bankrupted and entire parishes are being closed because of lawsuits against the sodomites in the priesthood, and there is a priest who is fighting for justice to be brought to these predators, then that priest is more Catholic than the Pope. If the General Instruction for the Roman Missal forbids liturgical dancing in all forms as inappropriate for the sanctity of the Mass, and a priest refuses to allow such abominations in his sanctuary, then he is being more Catholic than the Pope. If a bishop refuses to give communion to scoundrels like Rudy Giuliani and John Kerry because of their immoral marital lives and their public support of infanticide, then that bishop is being more Catholic than the Pope.

And is that such a bad thing?

At Assisi, John Paul II of blessed memory committed grave acts of idolatry, worshipped false gods, and profaned holy places by allowing members of false religions to worship there. I care not who you are or what your intentions are. That is immoral, illicit, and contrary to everything in Catholic teaching. John Paul II was guilty of grave sins when he allowed this to happen. This does not make me un-Catholic to make these observations, nor does it mean that John Paul II was not Pope. He certainly was; he just happened to be a very scandalous Pope. This does not mean that I do not recognise the very real authority the Pope has. I do not deny the infallibility of the Church or the Pope by making these observations. I am very quick to point out the most famous infallible decree that Pope John Paul II gave, that women cannot be priests, which was given in response to the recent decision of the Anglican sect to lay their unholy hands on the heads of short-haired women and call them priests. I am thankful for the dogmatic decree that John Paul II gave us. But make no mistake – that man was guilty of grave sins and merely to look them over as if they were unimportant or inconsequential is a grave error and is a disservice to the Church at large. He led many people astray with his actions and to this day we have seen the evil done by those bishops wanting to practise this false œcumenism by engaging in the rituals of pagan religions.

Pope Benedict as well is guilty of such things. Even since becoming Pope, twice he has been to pray with anti-Christs in synagogues in order to placate them and submit himself to their unholy wishes. They did not like the fact that the Church prayed for their conversion, so they demanded that he change the prayer in the Mass on Black Friday. It does not take a theologian to recognise that something is gravely wrong here. Since when does the Church make its policies based on the whims of anti-Christs? I realise that Pope Benedict’s altered prayer is still Catholic in its basic substance, but the very idea of consulting anti-Christs for changes to the Mass is absurd. And it does not make me un-Catholic to make this observation, nor does it mean that I do not respect the authority of the Pope.

But none of these scandalous actions should be entirely surprising to Catholics. Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to false gods in the fourth century. [The only difference between that incident and the more recent abominations is that Marcellinus was required to do a long penance for his sins. Recent Popes have been praised by Catholics and non-Catholics alike for their sacrileges.] We have seen generations of corrupt Popes, centuries of simoniac bishops, and two thousand years worth of unchaste priests. And yet, in every generation there have been those who went against the common grain in the hierarchy and did what was right. They kept their vows of chastity, they refused to exploit the poor, and they did not withhold rebuke from anybody who needed it, the Holy Father included. These people became known as saints.

And yes, many of them probably were more Catholic than the Pope.