Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
You’re meeting your new girlfriend’s entire Reformed Evangelical family for the first time. It’s Easter dinner at her parent’s house. You’ve met and talked to her parents and three brothers at various times, but never all at once in such a formal setting. You’re scared to death!
Mary has warned you to avoid religious topics for a while, especially during this first formal meeting with the whole family. You agree wholeheartedly. This seems the prudent course.
However, when you arrive at Mary’s home, things don’t go according to plan.
Upon entering the house you greet Mary’s parents, three brothers — Calvin, John, and Ronald — and their spouses (all these are Reformed as well). You can feel the tension in the room as you’re introduced to each one.
As everyone begins to eat and make small talk, you’re praying everything will go smoothly. But sure enough, it’s only about fifteen minutes into the meal when Mary’s father, Calvin Sr., speaks up. He tells of his concern for the soul of his daughter and asks if you would mind answering some questions.
Given the situation and the loving, concerned way in which he’s asking, it’s an offer you can’t refuse. As he begins the discussion you wonder if everyone in the room hears your heart beating. It seems all of your prayers for a peaceful and uneventful meal have been answered with a definitive no!
Mary’s father asks you why the Catholic Church believes in priests when “the Bible clearly teaches that we only have one priest, and that is Jesus Christ.” He reads aloud Hebrews 7:22-25, emphasizing certain words.
“‘This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.’” Calvin Sr. concludes: “Jesus is our one Intercessor before the Father.”
Calvin Jr. then adds, “I’ll go a step further. The existence of a New Testament priesthood is illogical if you consider three simple points: First, a synonym for intercessor is mediator. Second, the definition of a priest is a mediator between God and men. And third, 1 Timothy 2:5 says: ‘For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’”
Then John pipes in and adds: “In 1 Peter chapter 2, verses 5 and 9 tell us, ‘Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.’ We’re all priests in the New Testament. There’s no mention of any specially ordained priesthood as Catholics claim to have.”
Mary gives you a nod of encouragement as if to say, “Go for it,” which helps ease your nerves a bit. With her by your side, you begin to respond.
Step One:
You decide to point out first the obvious contradiction between Calvin Sr., Calvin Jr., and John. Calvin Sr. and Jr. each claimed there can only be one priest in the New Covenant based on Hebrews 7:22-25 and 1 Timothy 2:5: Jesus Christ. But then John pointed out, and rightly so, that all Christians are referred to as members of the “royal priesthood” in 1 Peter 2:5-9.
Houston, we have a problem. By your new Protestant friend’s own admission, it’s not a contradiction to say Christ is our one and unique priest/mediator/intercessor and yet see Christians playing the role of priest, mediator, and intercessor in the New Testament. The key is to understand the nature of the body of Christ.
Christians don’t usurp or diminish the priesthood of Christ when they’re referred to as priests; they participate in His unique priesthood. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that St. Paul describes this mystical union as a “body” (see 1 Cor 12:12-27, Rom 12:5) with Christ as its Head (see Eph 1:22-23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body doesn’t somehow take away from the head or the body as a whole.
It’s obvious that Hebrews 7:22-25 and 1 Timothy 2:5 aren’t saying Christians can’t act as mediators or intercessors in any sense. In fact, just a few verses before that passage in 1 Timothy, St. Paul says, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions” (2:1-2, emphasis added). The text urges Christians to act as mediators or intercessors. But we must understand that Christians can do so only because they are in the one true Mediator and act as members of His body.
Step Two:
Ronald now jumps into the fray and says, “Even if we were to accept the notion of Christians being priests as you say, and accept your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:22-25, this in no way shows that there is a distinct ordained priesthood. As John pointed out before, 1 Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests. And, in fact, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (see Eph 4:11), presbyters (see Jas 5:14), and bishops (see Acts 1:20, 1 Tim 3:1). They’re not called priests, which is hiereus in Greek.
You begin by pointing out the progress made thus far. At least Ronald has acknowledged that it’s possible to have priests within the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. And this isn’t a contradiction when the priests are understood as participating in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. Now you must prove the existence of a special ordained priesthood within the universal priesthood.
First, you point out First Peter 2:5 and 9, which John quoted; it’s actually a reference to Exodus 19:6: “And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The Scripture here indicates a universal priesthood under the Old Covenant.
And yet, in that same Exodus 19:22 we read, “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves.” There was already a universal priesthood in existence in the Old Covenant, but this didn’t mean there couldn’t be a distinct ordained priesthood as well. So it is in the New Covenant.
As far as the term “priest” is concerned: It’s not surprising that the Christians of the first century wouldn’t use the term “priest” (Greek hiereus) in describing their ministers. This was the same term being used by the more numerous Jewish (see Lk 1:8-9) and even pagan (Acts 14:13) priests. Christians used language to distinguish their priests from the Jewish and pagan priests of their day.
Step Three:
Now Elizabeth, John’s wife, takes her turn. She comes out with both barrels blasting and says, “You still haven’t demonstrated New Testament ministers are priests from Scripture. Isn’t this the whole point of the New Covenant? We don’t have to go to a mediator on earth anymore. We can go directly to God through Christ.”
“You’re right,” you respond. “We can go directly to God through Jesus Christ in offering our prayers and sacrifices in union with Him. But this isn’t an either/or proposition. It’s not the case that we either go to God or go to His representatives on this earth when we have needs. The Catholic Church, and the Bible I might add, says we do both. Let me demonstrate what I mean.
“Philippians 4:6-7 says: ‘Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.’ Here we see St. Paul encouraging all Christians to exercise their universal, ‘royal priesthood’ before God. We all agree on that point.
“However, analogous to what we saw in the Old Testament, we also have here a special group of men called by Christ to a special priestly ministry within the body of Christ in the New Testament. In fact, each of the three ministers mentioned by Ronald is clearly presented as priestly in nature in the New Testament. Let’s look at the apostle first.
“In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as mediators between God and men (in Christ, of course). This, again, is the definition of a priest. For example, after the resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles in the upper room. In John 20:21-23 He says to them: ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’
“Jesus communicates the power to forgive and retain sins to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (see also Lev 19:21-22). In Second Corinthians 2:10, St. Paul says to the Corinthians (as your King James Version puts it): ‘For if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.’ St. Paul evidently heard confessions in Corinth carrying out this priestly commission of the apostle.
“Jesus not only gives the authority to forgive sins to the apostles, but he gives them divine, infallible authority to proclaim the gospel as well. ‘He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me’ (Lk 10:16). Once again, in Second Corinthians 2:17 we see St. Paul carrying out this priestly ministry. ‘For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word; but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.’
“Bishops (Greek episkopoi) are successors of the apostles according to Scripture. In Acts 1:20 when the apostles were choosing a successor for Judas, the text reads: ‘And his bishopric (Greek episkopee) let another take.’ So they’re called to carry on the apostolic ministry in their same priestly function.
“Presbyters are most definitely seen as priests as well. James 5:14 puts it quite plainly: ‘Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (Gr. presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
“Notice, the Scripture doesn’t say we should just go to anyone because we’re all priests. It singles out the presbyters, and once again they’re seen acting as mediators in the forgiveness of sins and healing.
“St. Paul tells us the presbyter has been given the ministry of reconciliation in Second Corinthians 5:20: ‘So we are ambassadors (Greek presbeuomen) for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.’”
You now see several of Mary’s family wanting to respond, so you quickly get in two more points anticipating their objections.
“Don’t let the word ‘priest’ prejudice you from what the Scriptures plainly teach. New Testament ministers are, in fact, priests even though the noun isn’t found there referring to them. However, I do think it’s significant that the verb form of hiereus is found when St. Paul refers to his apostolic ministry. He refers to his ministry as a ‘priestly service’: ‘because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God” (Rom 15:15b-16a).
“I think people can easily fall into the same trap as those who would reject the doctrine of the Trinity because the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t found in Scripture. Yet the reality of the Trinity is there. The Church uses this word to define the mystery of three divine Persons in one essence. So it is with the priesthood.”
John’s wife is the first to speak, and she says that you’re twisting the Scriptures to fit a pre-conceived belief. She then gives an example by claiming she’s just recently been to a Bible study where her pastor explained John 20:21-23. He said the verb form used by St. John makes it clear that when Jesus said, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven,” He actually meant that if you forgive the sins of any, they have already been forgiven. Not by the apostle, but by God.
Step Four:
You respond: “I want you all honestly to examine the text and see who is ‘twisting the Scripture to fit a pre-conceived belief.’ It’s true that a perfect passive form of the verbs ‘to forgive’ and ‘to retain’ are used in the text. And this does mean ‘have been forgiven’ and ‘have been retained.’
“But look at the text! It very plainly tells us when the sins were ‘already forgiven.’ When you (the apostles) forgive them! The Catholic Church isn’t saying the apostles are doing this by some magical powers or by their own powers. Jesus ‘breathed on them’ and gave them the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. But the fact is the apostles are the instruments of God’s forgiveness. If this isn’t a priest, then what is a priest?”
Conclusion:
At this point you feel it’s time to cut the conversation short before the discussion turns heated. So before you change the subject and get to Mary’s delicious-looking strawberry pie, you just have to make one challenge to the family. You ask them to do what you have already done — what really helped solidify you in your Catholic faith: Read the early Church Fathers on this issue of the priesthood. From the very beginning, the central reason for the clergy’s existence has been to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as priests of almighty God.
You explain how Jesus acted as Priest of the New Covenant when He celebrated the Passover with His disciples in the Upper Room. This Jewish Passover was considered a true sacrifice — not only the bloody aspect of the Passover that took place on the first day of the Passover week, but the unbloody aspect of it as well. Exodus 12:1-14 and Malachi 1:7-11 tell us that the unleavened bread was considered an unbloody sacrifice just as the lambs of sacrifice were considered a bloody sacrifice.
When Jesus said the immortal words “This is my body” and “This cup . . . is the new covenant in my blood” (see Lk 22:19-20), He established this sacrificial banquet for all time. They would no longer be consuming a lamb that could never take away sins (see Heb 10:11), but rather the true “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29, 6:53-54). And when He then said to His disciples, “Do this in remembrance of me,” He ordained them to go out and share this same cup of our salvation to the ends of the earth.
In the writings of St. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95), St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), St. Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 180), St. Hippolytus (A.D. 200), and St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 250) and beyond you’ll read the same thing. They all speak of the priesthood’s offering the Holy Sacrifice. You’ll also read of confession, apostolic succession, papal primacy and much more, but one thing is certain: Christians universally understood the reality of the New Testament priesthood in the early Church.
Quickly now you move to accomplish three things:
First, ease the tension in the room by saying, “Perhaps we can talk about these things another time.”
Second, make the move on Mary’s strawberry pie.
Third, think of something else to talk about.
You accomplish the first two with no problem, but as you go to make small talk with Calvin Jr., the first thing out of your mouth is, “So tell me about your church.” He begins by saying, “We are staunch TULIP Calvinists.”
Oops! You realize you’ve just begun another debate.
The Complete Biblical Basis for Confession by Tim Staples
Her Evangelical boyfriend has apparently convinced her she has no need of a priest to confess her sins. "Why can't I confess my sins directly to God?" Michelle protests.
The scenario:
You've decided to help out on a confirmation retreat at your parish. You’re a small group leader with five candidates in your group. The youth are responding well until the time comes to go to confession. One of the girls in your group, Michelle, has an objection to going to confession.
Evidently, Michelle was waiting for this opportunity to make her stand, because she immediately reels off five Scripture passages that she had no doubt memorized for the occasion.
"Isaiah 43:25 says, 'I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.' It's God who forgives sins," she confidently proclaims. You notice she is quoting from the King James Bible.
"Further, Hebrews 3:1 and 7:22-27 tell us Jesus is our one and only true High Priest and that there are not many priests, but one in the New Testament. The Bible makes it clear in 1 John 2:2 that Jesus 'is the propitiation for our sins,' and not some priest, 'and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world'. And how can we Catholics claim priests act in the role of mediator in confession when 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us, 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'?"
Your response:
You begin by complimenting Michelle on her knowledge of Scripture, and encourage the rest of your group to imitate her in the practice of memorizing Sacred Scripture. You thank her for both her honesty and for bringing up these objections to confession. In answering them, these objections can serve to deepen our understanding of the One, True Faith established by Jesus Christ.
Step One:
After thanking Michelle once again for bringing up Isaiah 43:25, which teaches us that it is, in fact, God Who forgives our sins, you ask another member of the group, Mark, to read Leviticus 19:20-22:"If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death . . . but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him . . . before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."
Remember, Isaiah 43:25 is an Old Testament passage. It declares that God forgives our sins. On that point all Christians agree. However, here in Leviticus, also in the Old Testament, the priest has been given the ministry of reconciliation. He mediates God's forgiveness to the sinner. Obviously, this does not take away from the fact that it is God Who does the forgiving. God is the efficient, or ultimate, cause of forgiveness. The priest is the instrumental cause
Michelle immediately objects. "But Jesus is our priest and mediator in the New Testament."
You respond, "We'll get to that in a minute, Michelle, but first I want to make sure everyone understands what we're saying." Now, in order to keep this from becoming a confrontation between yourself and Michelle, you turn to the rest of the group and say, "God indeed forgives us our sins, as Isaiah 43:25 teaches. However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of using priests to mediate that forgiveness to the world as Leviticus 19:20-22 teaches. Right?"
You notice Michelle responds affirmatively with the others, so you quickly move ahead.
Step Two:
"Michelle brought up another excellent point we need to address. How can we Catholics have priests to forgive our sins, when Hebrews 3:1 says Jesus is the apostle and High Priest of our confession? And what about Hebrews 7:22-27?" At this point, you ask another member of your small group, Kendra, to read the text.
"This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever . . . For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself."
At this point, you see all five of your group members absorbed in thought. Jennifer suddenly pipes up and says, "How do we answer that one? It seems that Jesus is our only priest."
To answer, you call on Andrea to read 1 Peter 2:5, 9.
"And like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people . . ."
If Jesus is the one and only priest in the New Testament in the strict sense that Protestants believe, then we have a contradiction in Sacred Scripture, because 1 Peter teaches that all believers are members of a holy priesthood. The key to clearing up this difficulty is in understanding the nature of the Body of Christ. Believers do not take away from Christ's unique Priesthood, rather, as members of His Body, we establish His Priesthood on earth. We are His hands and feet. Michelle jumps in, "That doesn't say there's any special priesthood we have to go to in order to have our mortal sins forgiven. That text says we're all priests.
"We'll get to that," you assure her, "but we are making progress. A moment ago we couldn't see how anyone could be a priest in the New Testament other than Christ, and now we see how all believers are priests.
"Before we move on to demonstrate a special priesthood, can we all see how Christ being the true High Priest does not eliminate the possibility of there being many priests? We are priests as believers inasmuch as we participate in the one priesthood of Christ, as members of His Body.” At this point you clear up the difficulty of 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Yes, Jesus is the one mediator between God and men. However, Christians are also called to be mediators in Him. When we intercede for one another or share the gospel with someone, we act as mediators of God's love and grace in the one true Mediator, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-7, 4:16, Rom. 10:9-14).
Now what about 1 John 2:2? "He is the expiation [propitiation] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." How can we demonstrate from Scripture the existence of a priesthood with the power to forgive sins, within the universal priesthood of all believers?
Step Three:
Now show the context of 1 Peter 2:5, 9. When St. Peter teaches us about the universal priesthood of all believers, he refers to Exodus 19:6 where God speaks of ancient Israel as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," a reference to the universal priesthood in the Old Testament "church." But this did not preclude the existence of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods within that universal priesthood (cf. Ex. 28 and Num. 3:1-12).
In an analogous way, we have a universal "royal priesthood" in the New Testament, but we also have an ordained clergy who have priestly authority given to them by Christ to carry out His ministry of reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17-21, John 20:21-23, James 5:16). Michelle once again protests. "But you still haven't answered the Scripture I quoted earlier. 1 John 2:2 says Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, not a priest. And in Mark 2:5-10, Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic. When the scribes object to that and call it blasphemy, Jesus says: ' "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth," he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."' Scripture is clear. Jesus is the One we go to for forgiveness. Where does the Bible say there's a priesthood with the authority to forgive sins
Step Four:
Now ask Mark to read John 20:21-23 to the group: "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.' "
"What does this text say to you?" you ask. Andrea speaks up: "I think it says Jesus gave His authority to forgive sins to His disciples, which we read about in Mark 2." The rest of the group agrees, except for Michelle, who had been listening attentively, but is now studying the text intensely.
You point out the setting: Jesus has risen from the dead and is about to ascend to the Father. In verse 21, Jesus says, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." What did the Father send Jesus to do? He came to be the one true mediator between God and men: proclaiming the gospel (cf. Luke 4:16-21), reigning supreme as King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 19:16), and especially, redeeming the world through the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1 Peter 2:21-25, Mark 2:5-10). So this is what Christ is sending the apostles to do in His name: To proclaim the gospel with His authority (cf. Matt. 18:15-17), to govern the Church in His stead (cf. Luke 22:29-30), and to sanctify the Church through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist (cf. John 6:54, 1 Cor. 11:24-29) and confession.
Christ, the High Priest of the New Covenant, ordained the apostles to continue His priestly mission. In John 20:22-23, Jesus then emphasizes this essential part of the priestly ministry of the apostles: forgiving men's sins in the name of Christ. "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." This is confession. The only way the apostles can either forgive or retain sins is by first hearing those sins confessed, and then making a judgment as to whether or not the penitent should be absolved.
"You mean it's up to the priest to decide whether or not I'm going to be forgiven?" Michelle queries indignantly.
"Yes, Michelle. That's what the Bible teaches here in John 20.
"Let's say a woman confesses adultery," you continue. "When the priest asks her if she's sorry for her sin and resolved to turn away from it, she says she's not. The priest would then be bound to 'retain' her sins. One has to be truly sorry for his or her sins in order to be forgiven." "What if she lies to the priest and says she's sorry when she's not, and then the priest absolves her?" Jennifer asks. "Will she be forgiven?" "No," you respond. "The sacrament does not take effect unless the penitent is truly sorry for his or her sins. In fact, lying in confession is another serious sin, called the sin of sacrilege.
Step Five:
You notice Michelle is much less defensive when she asks her next question. "Do we see any examples of the apostles or church elders actually forgiving sins?"
You have Andrea read 2 Corinthians 2:10: "Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ."
Actually, a better translation of the phrase "in the presence of Christ" is "in the person of Christ." The Greek word in the passage is prosopon. The Latin word persona comes from this word. The Greek prefix pro translates to Latin as per. The Greek sopon becomes sona in Latin. Interestingly, the King James Bible renders the better translation of "person."
You read James 5:14-16 aloud: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."
You point out Scripture teaches us we must go to the "elders," not just anyone, to receive this "anointing" and the forgiveness of our sins. Michelle objects. "In verse 16 it says to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another. James is just encouraging us to confess our sins to a close friend so we can help one another to overcome our faults."
You respond, "We have to examine the context of Scripture in order to understand it properly. There are two reasons we know St. James is not saying we should confess our sins to just anyone. First, he's just told us to go to the elder, or priest, in verse 14. Then, verse 16 begins with the word "therefore." That word is a conjunction that connects verse 16 back to verses 14 and 15. It's the elder to whom St. James is telling us to confess our sins.
Step Six:
At this point, there's a break and you decide to take Michelle outside for a little one on one. You ask her, "Well, what do you think? “She replies thoughtfully, "I have to admit, John 20:21-23 and all the rest of the verses you pointed out make it awfully clear. But it's so hard to confess your sins to a man."
"Yep, I agree," you say. "But I guarantee you, you will walk out of that confessional feeling like you're walking on air. And remember, when the priest says, 'I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' there are two people speaking at the same time: the priest, and Jesus Himself, Who loves you more than words could ever say."
After the break, it's time for confession. You're watching for Michelle. As soon as she comes out of the confessional, she looks right at you with a bright, beaming smile. As she approaches, you tease, "Was I right?"
There is a very simple response to this once we agree on a few basics. First of all, Catholics do recognize and have always recognized that Christ is the one mediator between God and man. Second, prayer to the saints does not bypass Christ but is actually a request to the saints to intercede for us before the throne of Christ in Heaven.
It is very much like you asking a friend of yours to pray for you. If you truly believe that there is only one mediator between God and man then why would you ask someone else to pray for you?!
It appears that this issue is now reduced to the question of can the saints hear our requests and can they pray for us? Scripture teaches us that the angels and saints place the prayers of the holy on earth before the throne of God (Tobit 12:12, Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3-4). So if we believe scripture, we can agree that the saints are interceding for us before God. So Catholics are simply asking Mary and the saints, as well as their friends on earth, to pray for them.
One last question to consider in this regard is this; are the prayers of sinners on earth more or less effective than the prayers of the saints in Heaven who are already in the presence of the Beatific Vision? Who would you rather have praying for you?
When we do something wrong to another, there are generally two issues to be addressed. One is seeking the forgiveness of the person who was hurt and the other is performing restitution. For example, if you were to break a neighbor’s window, the chances are that they would forgive you. You would however, still owe them for the replacement of the window.This is like the Catholic understanding of our relationship with God. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Purgatory as "the condition or state for those who have not totally alienated themselves from God by their sins, but who are temporarily and partially alienated from God while their love is made perfect and they give satisfaction for their sins".
So if we die while still owing restitution to God, we Catholics believe that our souls must pass through a cleansing state before entering Heaven. Scriptures refers to this in Revelation 21:27 where it states that nothing unclean shall enter Heaven. Also in 1 Corinthians 3:15, St. Paul tells us that each man's works will be tried after his death. If his works fail, he will be the loser and yet he himself will be saved, though only as men are saved by passing through fire. This penalty can not refer to Hell since no one is saved from Hell. It can't refer to Heaven since there is no pain in Heaven. Therefore, there must be some other state or process after our death.
The Catholics have another scripture reference in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, one of the books that Luther removed from the Bible. This book has a direct reference to praying for the dead. Why should one pray for the dead if they are in Heaven? Or why pray for the dead in Hell since it can't help them?
Who decides which position is correct? Who decides if Maccabees is or is not an inspired book of the Bible? For Catholics it's simple. The Church, using her teaching authority from Christ, is the only one authorized to make such a decision.
As with previous posts, we can first look to the Old Testament for a prefiguring of the Eucharist.
Let's begin with the very first Passover meal. This meal was the key to the deliverance of the chosen people from their bondage. As the story goes, an un-blemished male lamb was chosen to be slaughtered for the Passover meal. The blood of the lamb was applied to the doorpost. All who participated in the Passover meal were required to eat the flesh of the lamb. Only this way would the firstborn of the family be spared from the angel of death.Now we come to the New Testament. The key reference we want to start with begins at John 6:48. Before He is done at verse 71, Christ mentions not once but four times that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to obtain eternal life. Many disciples decide to leave Christ at this point because they could not accept His teaching. Does our Lord call them all back and say to them that He really didn't mean what He said? No! He lets them go their way.
Jesus then goes on to challenge the Apostles. Simon Peter is the only one to speak saying "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." Did the Apostles understand the discourse that Jesus just finished giving? Probably not; but they accepted the teaching and believed in Him.
The fulfillment of Christ's command in John 6 to eat His body and drink His blood comes at the last supper (Passover) when He institutes the Eucharist with the words "this IS my body ..." and "this IS my blood ...". Here is where the first imperfect Passover from the Old Testament is perfectly fulfilled in the New Testament. The spotless male lamb is to be offered as a sacrifice to obtain our redemption from the bondage of sin. The flesh and blood of the lamb is consumed.
The words of our Lord are clear and the parallels with the Old Testament are undeniable. The Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't make the mistake of walking away from this teaching as many did in John's Gospel.
It might help to understand the Papacy and the role of the Pope, by first looking back to the Old Testament and our salvation history.
All throughout salvation history, God has raised up leaders for His chosen people, i.e. Moses, David and Abraham. These leaders spoke on behalf of God with His full authority to speak. They taught and directed the chosen people in the practice of their beliefs, in determining right from wrong and in making moral decisions.Peter was singled out in the scriptures as the first in authority among the apostles. Peter is generally mentioned first when Christ speaks of the apostles (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13). Peter also speaks on behalf of the apostles in several instances (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41 and John 6:69). Peter is also the first to speak at Pentecost!
When our Lord first chose Peter, his name was Simon. Our Lord changed it to Peter which in and of itself is no small statement by our Lord. For the Jews of that time, a change in name was very significant. Consider those who had their names changed by God the Father, i.e. Abram to Abraham.
When Peter made his profession of faith in Matthew 16:16, that Jesus was the Son of the living God, Jesus responded in a unique way. He declared to Peter that he was rock and on this rock He would build HIS church. That the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom and what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and what he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. After the resurrection, Peter was asked by our Lord three times to confirm his love and then he was instructed three times to feed His sheep. There can be no doubt about this responsibility or this authority since it was given directly by Christ to Peter.
Why would Christ give such responsibility and authority to a man who would follow him to the Father relatively soon? What is it that Peter could do in his short lifetime that Christ had not already accomplished? If we take Christ's promises to Peter seriously and if we trust in the Old Testament as a prefiguring of the events of the New Testament, it is not to hard to conclude that the authority given to Peter was indeed to be passed on to his successors in order to have an authoritative teacher as Christ's representative here on earth.
Let's start our review of this topic by defining what is meant by redemption and salvation.
The non-Catholic view of salvation is that once one accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, their salvation is assured. This comes from several scripture quotes including John 3:3, Hebrews 9:12 and Romans 5:15. The belief is generally that no matter how good or bad we are after we've accepted Christ, we can not lose our salvation. They often require what they call the ‘Sinner’s Prayer’, which by the way is not found in the Bible.
Christ redeemed us all through His incarnation, life, passion, death and resurrection in complete obedience to the will of His Father. Because of His redemptive action, heaven is now open to ALL of mankind. Salvation on the other hand, deals with each of us individually and our relationship with God and how we, as an individual, actually get to heaven.
The non-Catholic view of salvation is that once one accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, their salvation is assured. This comes from several scripture quotes including John 3:3, Hebrews 9:12 and Romans 5:15. The belief is generally that no matter how good or bad we are after we've accepted Christ, we can not lose our salvation. They often require what they call the ‘Sinner’s Prayer’, which by the way is not found in the Bible.Although none of these verses refer specifically to FAITH ALONE, Romans 3:28 is generally used to support this belief since it states that a person is justified by faith apart from the law. It is possible that one might be led to this conclusion by looking ONLY at these scriptures AND by approaching scripture with the predetermined idea that all Catholic practices and traditions are unnecessary. But as I previously discussed, the entire Bible is inspired and we can not therefore recognize ONLY those verses which meet our particular need, i.e. no cherry picking.
St. Paul, in Romans 3:28, was referring to works peculiar to the old Jewish Law, i.e. circumcision as in Romans 3:30-31. When Catholics refer to works they mean works of charity and love.
Understanding that the entire Bible is inspired, we only have to look to many other scripture verses where the doctrine of faith alone is specifically singled out as invalid. For example, you can refer to Ephesians 2:10, 1 Timothy 6:18, Titus 2:7, James 2:14-26, Revelation 2:5, 2:23, 2:26, 20:12 where works are identified as key to our salvation.
Finally, we can look to Matthew 25:32-46 where our Lord Himself specifically identifies the necessity of performing good works. Those who perform good works during their lifetime will be saved; those who don't will not. Studying these scriptures with an open heart and an open mind can only lead us to the conclusion that faith AND good works are necessary for salvation; not simply faith alone.
Is it the Bible alone or Bible and Tradition? What is the pillar and foundation of truth? If we believe that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us we find that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Most non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. Martin Luther claimed this when he broke away from the Catholic Church, i.e. the claim of "Sola Scriptura." Catholics have, on the other hand, always accepted the teaching authority of the Church together with the Bible as the basis for our Faith.So then, how do Catholics come to this position?
Well we didn't actually come to this position; we have been simply living it out since the very inception of the Church. A brief historical perspective might be helpful in understanding this.
From a previous post (Is the Bible Inspired?), we saw that the New Testament books were not really put together as a completed Bible until approximately 400 AD. So we know that the earliest Christians did not have access to the written word. We also know that until the invention of the printing press in the 1450's, the Bible was not accessible to most people due to the difficult and time consuming task of making copies by hand. It wasn't even until fairly recently that faithful Christians were educated enough to be able to read the Bible.
Make you wonder how the Christian faith was passed on to believers during this period of when access to the Bible was quite limited.
The answer is that practically all of the teaching during this time was done by oral instruction relying on the teaching authority of the Church for the proper interpretation of the Scriptures and for the passing on of Apostolic Tradition.
The Bible itself is quite clear regarding the significance of tradition (see John 21:25, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2). Since these scripture references, along with many others, refer to both tradition and the spoken word, they MUST be integrated into the Christian understanding of revelation. Since the Word of God can not contradict itself, the only choice we have as Bible believing Christians is to accept tradition as well as scripture as our source of faith.
I know. That sounds like a crazy question, but I have ever seriously considered it. It seems to me that most Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) just accept that the Bible is inspired without giving it a second thought. What is the reason for this? Perhaps it is because our parents and teachers told us it was or because when we read scripture we feel inspired by it or because scripture itself states that "all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?
If you really take the time to think about it, none of these reasons are good enough for us to build our system of beliefs on. Parents and teachers have no direct proof or authority to teach us that the Bible is inspired; it comes from their own traditions! The feeling of inspiration one gets from reading scripture does not guarantee that scripture is inspired. And, many other religious books claim to be inspired, e.g. as the Koran and the Book of Mormon.So then, how do we know that the Bible is truly inspired?
First we will not assume the Bible is inspired but will look at it strictly from a historical perspective. We can easily support the historical accuracy of the New Testament from many other writings existing today. Since we know that it is historically accurate, we know that a man named Jesus actually existed and that He worked numerous miracles during His lifetime and that He claimed to be the Son of God. From this we can make two statements about Jesus. Either He was who He said He was, or He was crazy. If He was crazy, then how do we explain the many miracles, the eye witness accounts of His resurrection and the numerous people willing to die for him? We can't! Quite to the contrary, these facts actually point to the conclusion that Jesus was who He said He was; the Son of God.
Now, if He was the Son of God, we know that He would accomplish all that He said He would. One of the things He said He would do is to found His Church; "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build MY church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19).
Well, now we have a Church founded by Jesus himself which was given the authority to bind and loose; so now let’s take a look at the Bible.
In the early years of the Church, there was no New Testament. In fact, it was not until around the year 400 AD that the final version of the books of the Bible was actually compiled. How do we know that those books of the Bible actually represent the word of God? The answer is now fairly simple! It doesn't depend on our parents or teachers and their traditions, our feelings or a statement in a scripture claiming inspiration. We know the Bible is inspired because the Church that Christ founded used the teaching authority given by Christ to discern which scriptures were inspired and which were not.
