|
|
Christian History The Bible Justification The Sacraments The Mass A Modest Proposal
*Many thanks to Catholic Answers
For the research they have done in regards to Catholicsm & Apologetics in general. NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
At times Fundamentalists talk as if they thought
no case could be made for the Catholic faith. That’s understandable. After
all, if you’re a Fundamentalist instead of a Catholic, it is because you
do not believe that Catholicism is true. You reject it because you think it is false. But make
sure what you’re rejecting is Catholicism, not merely a caricature of it.
If you think Catholics worship Mary, pray to statues, and claim the pope
is equal to God, then you aren’t rejecting Catholicism, but someone’s misrepresentation
of it. You deserve to have the facts before you make up your mind. This
tract, which is just an overview, states a brief case for Catholicism in
a few important areas. Catholic Answers
has available tracts which consider
in detail these and other topics—including, perhaps, just the ones you
are most interested in.
Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs
(Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory
beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that
has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics
are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back
through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show
that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop
of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take
any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry
Newman did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
He looked at Christian beliefs through the ages.
Starting with the nineteenth century (he was writing in 1844), he worked
backward century by century, seeing if Catholic beliefs existing at any
particular time could be traced to beliefs existing a century before. Back
and back he went, until he got to New Testament times. What he demonstrated
is that there is a real continuity of beliefs, that the Catholic Church
has existed from day one of Church history, that it is in fact the Church
established by Christ.
Newman was not a Catholic when he started the book,
but his research convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith, and
as the book was finished he converted. Fundamentalist leaders make no effort
to trace their version of Christianity century by century. They claim
the Christianity existing in New Testament times was like today’s Protestant
Fundamentalism in all essentials.
According to modern Fundamentalists, the original
Christian Church was doctrinally the same as today’s Fundamentalist churches.
When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in A.D. 313, pagans flocked
to the Church in hopes of secular preferment, but the Church could not
assimilate so many. It soon compromised its principles and became paganized
by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. It developed the doctrines with
which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, it apostatized
and became the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, true Christians (Fundamentalists)
did not change their beliefs but were forced to remain in hiding until
the Reformation.
The trouble with this history is that there are
no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the
papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary,
salvation by something besides "faith alone," purgatory—were evident long
before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians
before this supposed "paganization" took place. Another difficulty is that
there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground
Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation.
In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished,
but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist
church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the
doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura,
salvation by "faith alone," and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist
writers dislike discussing Church history!
Since the Christian Church was to exist historically
and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had
to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the
hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under
the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily
be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need
an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of
doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors
to that position.
Christ designated Peter head of the Church when
he said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build
my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural
sense of the passage, say "rock" refers not to Peter, but to his profession
of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences
away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ.
The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the
cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4–8) does not mean Peter was not appointed
the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation
stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the
only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one
sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in
another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself
would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven,
from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind
a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious
truth. That visible authority is the papacy.
Since the Reformers rejected the papacy, they also
rejected the teaching authority of the Church. They looked elsewhere for
the rule of faith and thought they found it solely in the Bible. Its interpretation
would be left to the individual reader, guided by the Holy Spirit. But
reason and experience tell us that the Bible could not have been intended
as each man’s private guide to the truth. If individual guidance by the
Holy Spirit were a reality, everyone would understand the same thing from
the Bible—since God cannot teach error. But Christians have understood
contradictory things from Scripture. Fundamentalists even differ among
themselves in what they think the Bible says.
The Bible also tells us that private interpretation
is not to be the rule for understanding the Bible. Peter declares this
to be a matter of prime importance, saying, "First of all you must understand
this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation"
(2 Pet. 1:20). Later he warns what can happen if a person ignorantly approaches
Scripture on his own or is unstable in clinging to the apostolic teachings
he has received. He states of Paul’s letters, "There are some things in
them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their
own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). Private
interpretation and instability in clinging to the doctrines passed down
from the apostles can thus result in one twisting the scriptures to one’s
own destruction.
The Bible also denies that it is sufficient as
the Church’s rule of faith. Paul acknowledges that much Christian teaching
is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (1
Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the
traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"
(2 Thess. 2:15). We are told that the first Christians "devoted themselves
to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that
was given even before the New Testament was written.
The Reformers saw justification as a mere legal
act by which God declares the sinner to be meriting heaven even though
he remains in fact unjust and sinful. It is not a real eradication of sin,
but a covering or non-imputation. It is not an inner renewal and a real
sanctification, only an external application of Christ’s righteousness.
Scripture understands justification differently.
It is a true eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal of
the inner man, for "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who
are in Christ Jesus" and "if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation;
the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (Rom. 8:1 and 2 Cor.
5:17). Thus God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit
and belief in the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13).
Scripture conceives of forgiveness of sins as a
real and complete removal of them. The words used are "wipe out," "blot
out," "take away," "remove," and "cleanse" (Ps. 51:2[50:3]; Is. 43:25;
Mic. 7:18; John 1:29; Ps. 103 [102]:12). Scripture shows justification
as a rebirth, as a generation of the supernatural life in a former sinner
(John 3:5; Titus 3:5), as a thorough inner renewal (Eph. 4:23), and as
a sanctification (1 Cor. 6:11). The soul itself becomes beautiful and holy.
It is not just an ugly soul hidden under a beautiful cloak.
When on earth, Christ used his humanity as a medium
of his power (cf. Mark 5:25–30). He uses sacraments to distribute his grace
now (cf. John 6:53–58, 20:21–23; Acts 2:38; Jas. 5:14–15; 1 Peter 3:21).
Not mere symbols, sacraments derive their power from him, so they are his
very actions. In them he uses material things—water, wine, oil, the laying
on of hands—to be avenues of his grace. Although one can receive grace
in other ways, a key way is through sacraments instituted by Christ. A
sacrament is a visible rite or ceremony which signifies and confers grace.
Thus baptism is a visible rite, and the pouring of the water signifies
the cleansing of the soul by the grace it bestows. There are six sacraments
other than baptism: the Eucharist, penance (also known as reconciliation
or confession), the anointing of the sick, confirmation, matrimony, and
holy orders.
The Old Testament predicted Christ would offer
a sacrifice in bread and wine. Melchizedek was a priest and offered sacrifice
with those elements (Gen. 14:18), and Christ was to be a priest in the
order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110 [109]:4), that is, offering sacrifice under
the forms of bread and wine. We must then look for a New Testament sacrifice
distinct from that of Calvary, because the crucifixion was not of bread
and wine. We find it in the Mass. There, bread and wine become the actual
body and blood of Christ, as promised by him (see John 6:53–58) and as
instituted at the Last Supper.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice
of the cross was complete and perfect. The Mass is not a new sacrificing
of Christ (he doesn’t suffer and die again, cf. Heb. 9:26), but a new offering
of the same sacrifice. While what happened on Calvary happened once, its
effects continue through the ages. Christ wants his salvific work to be
present to each generation of those who come to God "since he always lives
to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). He surely has not abandoned
us. Through the instrumentality of the priest, he is present again, demonstrating
how he accomplished our salvation: "For from the rising of the sun to its
setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense
is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among
the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Mal. 1:11).
You have heard any number of people speak against
the Catholic Church. Some do it casually, while others have made it their
profession. Some are blunt, while others are subtle. They all paint an
uninviting picture of a Church that believes in the most peculiar things.
But do you really think a fourth of all Americans would be Catholic if
their religion were as odd as its opponents claim? Isn’t it rather likely
that you haven’t been told the whole story? To make an informed decision,
you need to hear both sides. Why not write to Catholic Answers
for additional
information and tracts? Either your suspicions will be confirmed, or you
will discover that there is more to Catholicism than you once thought.
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
For information on this web site send mail to webmaster
This page created by a loyal knight in the order of Knights of Columbus Council #13161
Copyright Realm of The Catholic Warrior ©
1999-2011 all rights reserved