Catholics - Are We Our Own Worst Enemies?

This is a copy of an email sent out in response to the sad story of a lady named Gloria and her experience of the Church.

Dear Gloria,

Catholics make a distinction between the "miraculous" conception of Jesus and the "immaculate" conception of Mary. Joseph was the foster father of Christ, but our Lord's true Father was God. Jesus was conceived in the blessed virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mary, on the other hand, was conceived in the normal course. Indeed, tradition renders the names of her parents as Joachim and Ann. Catholics also believe that Jesus was always fully aware of his origins and relationship to the Father. Jesus is both God and man. Mary, no matter how privileged and holy, was purely creature like us. At the time of the Annunciation, she might have been as young as fourteen years of age. She was a young girl.

As for statues, it should be noted that Catholics have sculpted and painted art of various religious figures. Along with stained-glass windows, they remind us of our family of faith. Children and the illiterate would often learn their catechism and the Scripture stories from such pious images. When the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became a human being, the very image of Christ, as a man, became revelatory of God. That is why even Protestants offer picture bibles to their children. Many denominations that generally reject religious depictions will put up nativity scenes at Christmas and exchange cards with holy images. The only difference with Catholics is that the use of such sacramentals is not reserved to any single season of the year. We treat them reverently because of the deep regard we hold the scene or person portrayed. They are entirely representational and do not signify a return of idol worship. The pagan treatment of statues and images as if they possess some power apart from God is entirely superstition and is rightly condemned by the Catholic Church. This includes statues of Mary.

Do Catholics worship Mary? It is understandable that non-Catholics might misinterpret the great honor and respect shown Mary as divine worship. Indeed, certain errant souls might allow their fervor to cross this line sometimes. When it has happened, the Church has responded with immediate corrective measures. It is true that the English word "worship" is sometimes used regarding Marian devotion. However, this worship (hyperdulia) differs from the adoration given God. Adoration belongs properly to "the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit" (CCC #921). If given to Mary, it would mean the return of goddess worship. Such would be a grave sin. Catholic devotion to Mary actually rejoices in how wonderfully God worked in this Jewish maiden. It is a fulfillment of Luke 1:48: "All generations will call me blessed."

Debi is quite right in saying that the first part of the HAIL MARY prayer comes directly from Scripture. Look at Luke 1:26-38. The angel Gabriel says to her, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" Many ancient versions add, "Blessed are you among women!" Translations differ, but this salutation from heaven to the "most favored one" is still echoed in Catholic prayer. The second half of the prayer is the response of the Church to the precious message from God. "Holy Mary, Mother of God," defending the divinity of Jesus, "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death," literally, be in prayerful solidarity with us as disciples of Christ.

Why are our beliefs and ways so different? There are many reasons. I would suggest that it be principally because Catholics have a tremendous sense of attachment to the Church and the traditions of past days. The world changes, and yet the faith of Jesus remains. While Protestant churches often trace their ideological development to the reformation reaction against Catholic abuses and on behalf of a return to the Scriptures; Catholics celebrate a faith that they truly believe has developed and grown from the roots of the Apostolic community. They are the recipients of two thousand years of prayer, homilies, biblical study, reflection, and struggle against forces from without. Many ministers and students in the Evangelical community are today picking up the ancient written resources to discover how Christians of old lived out their Christian faith. This, along with social alliances against a secular and hedonistic world, as well as collaboration in biblical research, is bringing forth fruit and a certain degree of unity.

You mention a relative of your husband explaining Marian prayer in terms of Jesus listening to his Mother. Actually, we find something of this relationship at the wedding feast of Cana. However, there is nothing coercive in such petition or prayer. Admittedly there has sometimes been the unfortunate caricature of Mary hiding her children from the vengeful wrath of her Son. As with any sanctoral prayer, the proper object is God. Let me assure you that the Catholic Church sees no tension or competition between what Mary wants and what Christ desires. True saints are of one mind and heart with the Lord. We remember Mary because of a strong sense that we are members of the family of God. Mary is a perfect window to her Son. She joins her prayer to ours.

As I read the rest of your post, I am practically falling out of my chair in disbelief. "And I do disagree that many of my in-laws think that I'm not saved because I'm not Catholic." Your relatives by marriage may be very nice people, but if what you say is correct, they would not be the best authorities on what the Catholic Church believes. Even as a priest, I would never make the absolute presumption against someone's salvation. The matter of final judgment belongs to our Lord. I am terribly sorry about this. Some non-Catholics feel the same way about us. The teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council stipulating that there was no salvation outside the Church was prior to the Protestant breach. It has been rightfully argued that ignorance of the truth and/or a common baptism modifies this statement. The teaching is about anyone who KNOWS that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and still refuses to join. We leave the eternal destiny of Protestants and others to the providence of God. We do not seek to judge them. The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that non-Catholics necessarily cannot enter heaven. Catholics are required to respect the religious convictions of non-Catholic Christians, even if there is some disagreement. Despite our differences, Vatican II reminds Catholics that "whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification" (Decree on Ecumenism 4). We claim you as brothers and sisters. Note this universal prayer said in all Catholic churches throughout the world on Good Friday: "Let us pray for all our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Jesus Christ, that God may gather and keep together in one Church all those who seek the truth with sincerity. Almighty and eternal God, you keep together those you have united. Look kindly on all who follow Jesus your Son. We are all consecrated to you by our common baptism. Make us one in the fullness of faith, and keep us one in the fellowship of love. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen."

"They don't read the Bible, they only go to church on Christmas, Easter, Weddings, and Funerals." Actually, a Catholic in good standing is normally required to participate at Sunday Mass (worship) every week. As for the bible, Catholics are encouraged to read it and my parish has several bible study groups. Catholics are also exposed to a good amount of Scripture at our services.

"They want to give to their Church, not to [the] poor, because a priest told them that if you give it to the Church, [they] and their family will go to heaven." If he said any such thing then he is out of his mind. You cannot buy salvation with money. The sacraments themselves are free, anything contrary would be simony. Yes, there is a responsibility to maintain our ministers and our churches, but that is a practical matter. Most churches have poor boxes where the money goes exclusively for those in need. Our St. Vincent de Paul Society took over 74 baskets with turkeys to the poor for Thanksgiving. Christmas will be even bigger. We have clothing drives, collections for the Crisis Pregnancy Center, and much more. Priests usually receive very small wages and even much of that they give out to beggars at the door. This has been my experience of priesthood. Everything the Church owns, her churches, schools, hospitals, and all the rest belongs to her people and those we serve. A priest should never be the lord of the manor. He is a servant of God and his holy people. The Pope is called the Servant of the Servants of God.

Your husband says, "Priests are all crooks." I hear hurt and anger talking, and thus take no offense. I can assure you Gloria that I am no crook. My family is poor and I am struggling to raise money for my invalid father's funeral. As for vices, I will admit that I eat too much and have a library bigger than I will ever be able to read. That is about it.

The parish I serve has 3,000 at Sunday Mass and 530 kids in the school. A big project among our young people is precisely the W.W.J.D. that you mention: What would Jesus do? Yes, there are hypocrites among us all. But, is not that precisely what a sinner is? The only difference is that true Christians recognize their failures, admit sinfulness, repent, and seek to start anew. That is the pattern of my life.

I am sorry that your husband was wronged as an altar boy and accused of taking the offertory money. Being dismissed as an altar server can be more painful than many imagine. My brother John received a schedule in the mail one day and noticed that his name had been deleted from it. He called the rectory and was rudely told that he was not needed anymore. There was no discussion or notification. There was no "thank you" for years of faithful service. He is still wounded by this. I wanted desperately to attend Catholic school; however, the nun in charge told my mother that I was too sickly and stupid. Little did anyone know that I would be the one who would become a priest. We all have disappointments, and priests are not exempt from being hurt, either. Sometimes people in the Church let us down. They even scandalize us. But the Church is more than any one member. We keep our eyes on Christ and his will for us.

I hope my words tonight help. I devoted a lot of time to them. Remember me in your prayers as I keep you and your husband in mine. Today I had a cyst removed from my right eye and it is quite swollen and painful, as well as ugly. The doctor has done his work, now I will leave it to the Lord to complete the healing.

Please Gloria, do not judge Catholic faith by the poor example of some of her members. There are many individuals and small groups of deeply committed Catholics who could better show you the face of Catholic Christianity. One of my responsibilities as a priest is to help awaken the many sleepers in our midst so that they will grow and become more active in their faith. Perhaps the questions and witness of a woman like yourself is a clarion call for Catholics to be everything Christ has called them to be?

PEACE,

Fr. Joe

Censoring Prayer

Early this year, pastors throughout the state were sent guidelines for public prayer (in the state senate). Here is my letter of response. (Coincidentally, I used to get regular letters from the state senator. I cannot recall any since my response. What does this mean?)

Friday, January 23, 2004

State Senator Ulysses Currie
3 West Miller Senate Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Senator Currie,

First order of business, please note that Rev. Pollard has not been at Holy Spirit Church for many years and I have been pastor since replacing Rev. Michael Murray four years ago. Please have the mailing list corrected.

Second, I received and read with great interest your letter of January 23 about the “Freedom of Worship in the Senate of Maryland.” I can well understand the desire to preserve a “comfort level for the entire Senate membership,” but would submit that such a task is probably next to impossible.

As a Catholic priest, ecumenism is a hallmark of our approach to other religions; however, joint services usually consist of each religious group offering the prayer that is consistent with their doctrinal beliefs. Ecumenical prayer, as you suggest, which is really generic prayer, may be inconsistent with the theology of many religions. Christianity presents a particular problem because all prayer and saving importance is placed in a particular person, Jesus Christ. A Jew might avoid calling God Yahweh and a Moslem might be reserved in speaking of Allah, but Christian prayer loses all its punch when the saving name is omitted. Given that the Incarnation is denied, Judaism and even Islam might fare better under the stated policy than a Christianity forced by reductionism to deny the saving history of the New Testament. Further, while Catholics and many Protestant groups feel that Islam’s Allah is the same one God as revealed in the Scriptures, a number of Fundamentalists believe that it is a demon in disguise. Some religions are polytheists (multiple gods), like the Mormons and Hindus. Others do not believe in a personal God or even deny his existence all together. There is no way to make everyone happy, so why make everyone unhappy?

I suspect if you look at the history of prayer in your chambers, you will find that Christian prayer has predominated going back to the colonial period. It is somewhat ironic that what was deemed appropriate by the founders is no longer considered acceptable in our revisionist interpretation of the clause regarding the separation of Church and State.

There is much talk these days about toleration, but when push comes to shove— its proponents can be quite intolerant. My personal feeling is that in a multicultural society, we should be generous enough to make room for our religious differences. While not going out of our way to be offensive, a proper prayer in Arabic where God is called Allah and “Mohammed is his prophet” should not trouble us. Jewish prayers, often based on the Psalms, and sometimes said in Hebrew are an important part of the Judeo-Christian inheritance. Jews and Moslems who argue for their own observances in dress and symbols, find no problem with crosses or Christians calling upon the name of Jesus. We may disagree about profound matters, but our love for one another should transcend such differences. The policy that you stated erases something of our religious variety and wealth, and ultimately denies by imposed silence something basic about our sense of identity and values.

Given that this matter involves clergy, did any ministers, rabbis, priests, Moslem leaders, and others have input in how prayer might be handled in the State Senate? There might have been other alternatives. As the policy stands, some will still not be satisfied and many clergymen might have to wave the honor of presiding because it violates their religious conscience. Speaking for myself, when I have been the single clergyman to offer a prayer in a mixed setting, I often conclude my prayer in a softer voice, discernable only to myself and maybe a couple of people around me: “We offer this prayer in Jesus’ name.” And then for all to hear, I say, “Amen.” I am not happy with this compromise but it respects the audience and my own religious sensitivities. Obviously, the State Senate is not a place to belittle the faith (or lack thereof) of others; neither is it an occasion to proselytize. It is, however, a place to nurture freedom, not only of religion, but also of speech.

Know that you and Senator Miller will remain in my prayers. Your responsibilities are great and, as believers, I know that you always welcome divine assistance and guidance.

May the good Lord bless and keep you,

Father Joseph Jenkins
Pastor

To David: Letter 4 to An Anti-Catholic

Dear David,

The fourth reason you give for leaving the Catholic Church is the papacy. Nevertheless, it is for allegiance to this sacred office that bishops and priests are even now languishing in Chinese cells, having rejected the Patriotic Church formulated by the communist government. Eastern rite bishops and priests were tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in Romania for refusing to join the Orthodox Church after the Marxists took over there. Many great men and women were martyred in England for their continued allegiance to the primacy of Peter claimed for the papacy. The life of charity demonstrated by Mother Teresa and the firmness of faith exhibited by Pope John Paul II were noted as the significant factors in the conversion to Catholicism of Malcolm Muggeridge.

After giving a listing of papal titles, you say that they "rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father." Let us see, well the word POPE comes from the Greek word, "pappas" an almost slang word for a child's daddy. It is not the same word Jesus uses for his Father, "abba". The term HOLY FATHER is admittedly similar to the address of God in the Scriptures and in the various Latin Collects of the Mass. However, it is understood in Catholic circles that it is simply a sign of respect to one who functions as a special spiritual father, not unlike Joseph who stood in as a foster father to Christ. No connotation of divinity is given the Pope. The term VICAR OF CHRIST could hardly refer to God since the term vicar clearly indicates that he is a steward for another. As Mother Teresa has said regarding her ministry for the poor, "I am only a little pencil." So it is with the Servant of the Servants of God, the Pope. God is the author to whom he submits his life and service. The word "substitute" sometimes used, even within Catholic circles, can be misleading. Speaking of the marriage analogy in Ephesians 5:23-25, you make this mistake. Christ is present in his ministers. The will of God is carried out by God himself in the Church with full respect to human freedom and to their gifts. Even the weaknesses and sins of his chosen ministers will not thort the ultimate providence of God. SOVEREIGN PONTIFF intimates that the popes have historically been temporal rulers as well and that he is the head of the college of bishops. Christ is the ultimate head of the Church.

Impugning the notion of vicar, you cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 which foretells the great apostate. I suspect that this was some of the dribble you were fed when you left the Catholic faith. I say this because missing from your narrative are those who "helped" you to renounce Rome.

You say that this negative citation is the only one in Scripture that speaks of a vicar, and here it is a blasphemous idolatry. Maybe your bible is different from mine? Peter and his successors do not replace Jesus, they render service in his name. Tracing the papacy back to Peter, Catholics trust the Pope because he was appointed by Christ: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17-19). Pointing toward the infallibility found in the Church, Jesus further states: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Luke 22:31,32). Christ called him Peter "Cephas" which in Hebrew means "foundation stone." Keys in the Old Testament signified stewardship (vicar) and succession, thus Jesus says: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). These keys symbolize authority (Isaiah 22:15-25; Revelation 1:18; 3:7). You cite John 10:11,14-16 about the Lord as the (only) shepherd over his sheep. And yet, most all Shepherds in the time of Jesus used helpers and even dogs. As a disciple of Christ, I have sometimes referred to myself as a faithful sheepdog to the shepherd. There is no getting away from our Lord's words to Peter: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17) which means to nurture the Church with the truth of the Gospel and to minister with the sacraments he instituted. He appoints Peter as the chief shepherd of the Church. Christ is the invisible and supreme head of the Church; the Pope is the visible and subservient head. This word "visible" is quite significant, despite your protestation otherwise. Churches without such a "visible" head fragment into multiplying factions without significant doctrinal or worship unity. In some cases, as in the Orthodox churches, they have tended to develop along nationalistic or ethnic lines. The only Church which demonstrates the kind of unity which Jesus urged is the Catholic Church. We might not like this happenstance, but it is a fact nonetheless. Luke 17:20-21 is simply a testimony that the kingdom comes first in Jesus himself. If your translation is to be trusted, the word "within" would indicate some movement of grace. However, given the time frame and within the context of other Lukan statements about the presence of the kingdom, the preferred translation of the Greek preposition would be "among". First through Christ and then through the Church, which is his Mystical Body, extended through time and space, the kingdom rushes in upon us. The many references to Christ's Church makes it difficult to understand why you would give a merely individualistic spin to the kingdom and our relationship to Jesus.

I am unsure why you bring up James 2:24 at this point against the salvation by faith only argument. I would have thought you would be on the other side.

The juxtaposition between lets say Matthew 16:17-19 (already cited) and 1 Corinthians 3:11 ("For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus") is one that must not be ignored. Peter is only a rock because Christ is the ROCK. Catholics would contend that both Scriptures must be affirmed. The Pope is literally a "chip off the ol' block," functioning as Christ's instrument of unity and authority over the universal Church. Similarly, the use of Colossians 1:18 falls on the same grounds. Catholics give God his due, despite what we might think of any of her individual members. The Church on earth in all the various levels of her existence resembles a family. The priest is a father to his parish; the bishop is a father to his diocese, the Pope is a father to the church in pilgrimage, and Christ is the revelation of his heavenly Father over the entire family of God, in this world and in the next.

Here your testimony ends. The next one is not worthy of a response. Citations are not annotated and in some cases outright falsehoods are made, as with the proposition that Catholics deny the divine inspiration of the bible. It is all reminiscent of the old Know Nothing movement and the bigotry found in the Tales of Maria Monk. I had thought better of you. The essay even goes so far as to blame the Catholic Church for the assassination of Lincoln. Silly nonsense! Remember none of us are exempt from charges of deliberate "false witness" when we appear before the divine tribunal.

Peace.
Fr. Joe

To David: Letter 3 to An Anti-Catholic

Dear David,

As I said in my first letter I am not much for debate, particularly as I have rarely seen much fruit from it. Indeed, sometimes it forces people all the more into their hardline positions, regardless of facts or evidence to the contrary. A notable exception has been when believers, overly self-confident in their knowledge of faith, have made fools of themselves during such confrontations. A rule of thumb in any dialogue is never to underestimate the other side. There are sincere and brilliant people of faith in both the Protestant and Catholic camps.

Speaking with some affinity toward the Catholic approach, it seems to me that the faithful often fail to make the Scriptures their own and to meditate on the truths of faith found there. Lacking such exposure, especially from their peers, they might be quite attracted to the ideas of Protestant friends and willing to join their bible study groups. Caricatures of Catholic faith might easily be avowed and common Scriptural truths presumed to be in opposition to Catholic authority and tradition-- even if such may not be the case. Certain Protestants quote Catholic books in the same re-interpretive and pick-and-choose style that they use with the Scriptures. Such things can make dialogue, debate, what have you, virtually an impossible task.

Reviewing my response and your argument up to this point, I would like to return for a moment to the salvific nature of the Scriptures. Despite the spin given to various texts you have encountered, the Catholic Church would also avow that there are essential saving truths found in the bible:

1. Monotheism: God is one. (revealed first to the Jews)

2. Divine Justice: God rewards the good and punishes the evil.

3. Trinity: God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

4. Incarnation & Redemption: Jesus is God the Son who became a man and suffered and died on the cross to save us.

If these are the essential saving truths, our faith must still be actualized in charity: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (KJV - Matthew 16:26-27).

The third issue which precipitated your breech from the Catholic Church is the matter of her infallible teaching authority. This would also include a renouncement of the Eastern Orthodox churches, who place this authority not so much in any individual bishop but in the Church as a whole.

You contend that Catholicism places authority in the wrong place, in the body instead of the head. I take it that if you use this analogy you must at least on some rudimentary level accept the theology of Christ's Mystical Body. However, in your estimation is it only figurative language or does it have a mystical, dare I say, an ontological reality? The unity of a body and head are pretty intimate, any who doubt this need only think of the French gelatine. Separate the head from the body, and one dies. The same principle holds for the Church. The teaching of the Mystical Body implies a unity between Christ and his Church, indeed, that he is present there and extending his ministry through the instrumentality of the Church. This hurts your argument. You list several Scriptures in your attack upon the authority of the Catholic Church.

Ephesians 1:22-23 - Actually these verses seem to teach the opposite of what you contend [CCC #830]. The Catholic leadership would state that Christ does indeed continue to exert his headship, but through the structures he ordained in the Church. Indeed, she is the "fulness of him that filleth all in all." The Church's view of apostolic authority and priesthood is contingent upon their sacramental ability to function in the one priesthood of Christ, head of the Church.

Colossians 1:18 - Again, this stresses the headship of Christ over the Church, a doctrine which Catholics accept. After all, salvation comes through Christ. The universal catechism states: "Christ 'is the head of the body, the Church' (Colossians 1:18). Raised to the Father's glory, 'in everything he [is] preeminent,' (Ibid.), especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things" [CCC #792].

This business that the "ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King" makes no sense whatsoever. Every king delegates authority and has stewards who function in his name. The Church is no different. Paul says as much a few verses after the last one you cited: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake [intercession for others?], and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body [rationale for the offering at Mass and prayers of propitiation], which is the church, of which I AM A MINISTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOD'S STEWARDSHIP given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. It is he whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. For this I labor and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me" (NAB - Colossians 1:24-29).

Hebrews 7:1-2 - Melchizedek is seen as a type of Christ, a king and priest. Nothing here supports your argument. Rather, it a text that stresses the priesthood of the new dispensation in Christ.

Revelation 1:5-6 - Here again, not only is there nothing to substantiate your claim, the text seems to say the opposite. Christ is the king of kings, and yet he has made us into a kingdom of priests for his God and Father. The sacrifice of Christ gives efficacy to our sacrifices. His authority is shared with his kingdom.
You go on to say that the authority is Christ and not the Church, and yet I have to wonder if any such strict distinction exists.

Matthew 28:18 - Jesus acknowledges that all power and authority has been given him, but note the commission in verses 19 and 20: RSV - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." He gives the Church authority to confer his sacrament of regeneration and to teach his truth. This authority is given his new People of God and not isolated individuals. If I did not know better from the rest of the website, the glaring nature of this verse would make me wonder if you yourself are not a pawn in promoting the religion of Rome? Such reverse psychology has been known to work.

1 Peter 3:22 - Yes, Jesus sits at the right hand of God with all authority and power subject to him. Catholics accept this. It says nothing about the authority Christ exerts in the Church.

You say that the Church is not the Savior, but the body of the saved. Okay, but does this negate the Catholic position that the Church is the sacrament of salvation in the world and the breaking in of the kingdom? No, it does not.
You cite whole lists of verses without ever detailing how they support your arguments. Often times it seems that they do not.

I can easily use your own Scripture citations against you. Acts 20:17,28-30 - Paul admits that the Holy Spirit has put special guardians or shepherds over his flock. They are to feed the Church his truth and his sacraments. The wolves that will come among them are the Judases which emerge in every age. The Catholic faith held firmly to its orthodoxy and through councils and papal admonition, fought off these wolves in the body of the Church. Seen from this view, even yourself as a former Catholic, could be classified as one of these "men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (RSV - verse 31).

2 Peter 2:1-3 - Again, what does this prove? The true Church successfully fought off heresies. Who is to say that you are not among the "false prophets" and "false teachers"?

1 Timothy 4:3-4 - These passages are a real low blow. Paul's letter to Timothy have nothing to do with legitimate discipline and penance. Rather. it declares a false asceticism to be demonic. There were many communities, Jewish, and later pseudo-Christian, which contended that certain foods were unclean, that matter was evil, that sexual relations (even in marriage) were sinful, etc. Some of them even insisted that unless such a strict life was pursued one could not be saved. These sects were often quite secretive and saw themselves as a special elect given secret teachings. All these movements were spurned by the true Church. Fasting and abstinence in the Catholic tradition is not a negation of the fruits of creation but an exaltation of their goodness. It is precisely because they are good that they are sometimes avoided so as to show God that as the giver he takes precedence over the gifts. Even Jesus sometimes fasted. Our Lord and St Paul both never took a wife. We can follow their model, if it is given us, freely to do so. Religious life and priesthood is a gift which one embraces with liberty. This includes the special charism of celibacy.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-11 - I will save my comments on this until my next letter. I may have missed a few things but the lateness of the hour and fatigue now must draw me away.

Peace.
Fr. Joe

To David: Letter 2 to An Anti-Catholic

Dear David,

The second reason you list in your testimony for leaving the Catholic Church was the assertion found in the Catechism for Adults (with which I am unfamiliar) that the bible was not a sufficient guide to salvation. Let us both be honest, there are some passages in Scripture which are not readily understood and which need some serious scrutiny to penetrate. The mere fact that Protestants disagree about the meanings of passages with each other, not to mention with Catholics, is proof of this. The fact that they can come to some agreement is the rationale behind honest and intelligent dialogue.

Forgive me for saying so, but it seems at this point that you begin to talk at cross-purposes. Notice the quotation from the catechism in question, "Can you LEARN to save your soul by just reading the Bible?" (p. 52). It does not say "can you learn HOW to save your soul," a difference which is most important. One does not educate oneself into heaven. If intelligence and learning was the key, the devil would be there still, and Judas besides. The 19th century Protestant social gospel movement assumed that education was the key to forcing God's kingdom into the world. They thought it would of necessity, make people good. As it turned out, we ended up with some of the best educated villains the world had ever seen. Suggesting that one might LEARN to save his soul falls on the same grounds as the event in the Garden whereupon our first parents ate from the forbidden tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. I am surprised that you did not see the Pelagian thrust in the very idea. We cannot save ourselves, it is entirely the work of Christ.

It may be that the catechism you acquired was not the most expert. Many were published in the 1960's and 70's with serious defects. Nevertheless, returning to the quotation, it reads "... because the Bible does not have everything God taught" (p. 52). Well, certainly the Scriptures themselves testify that there were many other things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded there. Let us be fair to what Catholics actually believe.

It is a tenet of faith that the Scriptures possess all saving truth. The Second Vatican Council taught: "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (Dei Verbum 11). The Scriptures you cite are not contradictory to this stance: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (that Scripture opens us to the gift of faith and salvation in Christ); Romans 1:16 (that it is God who saves believers); and James 1:21 (that we need a saving union with the incarnate Word). Please do not take this wrong, but I suspect that you saw a conflict where none existed. Returning to the subject of intelligibility, several concerns are rushed over that need some mention. Not having the time nor the expertise, I shall only mention them in brief.

1. The books and letters of Scripture were originally written to specific people living in a particular culture at a precise moment in history. Thus, there may be elements that have to be broken open so as to allow more full understanding. (This is not to deny their inspiration or value for the entire Church throughout the ages.)

2. The Scriptures come to us in various translations, each of which is an interpretation of the source material.

3. Because there is not always a clear and immediate understanding of a text, Protestants have developed a treasury of tools to help in translation and interpretation: word studies, commentaries, sermon collections, etc. Although not infallible, all of this constitutes a kind of interpretative authority over the bible.

These concerns were not directly addressed in the essay's Scripture citations. Ephesians 3:2-4 is part of a larger section in which Paul ponders upon his apostolic appointment and the divine plan for salvation in Christ which was revealed to him and now to the Gentiles. While we are assured of the Holy Spirit's aid in apprehending the truth of the Gospel, this is not entirely the same thing as any projected individual infallibility while Scripture reading. 2 Corinthians 1:13 is even more disturbing in your essay. You only quote the first half of the line, "For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand." The RSV text for the line is as follows: "For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand; I HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND FULLY [13], as you have understood in part, that you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day of the Lord Jesus [14]." This addition utterly changes the thrust of the text and admits that one might not fully understand the Scripture message. You next quote Ephesians 5:17 which is wonderful advice for both Catholics and Protestants! We must not remain in ignorance, we are duty-bound to seek out the Lord and to understand his will for us. Such comes from the bible, the model of faith witnessed by our ministers, families, and communities, and by PRAYER. The bible is not simply a "How To" book; the Christian should approach it with reverence and in communication with God. Otherwise, he or she will miss the whole point of it. Not having the catechism you mention, I cannot explore the context of the quotes you make from it. It may be that I misread you and you simply mean that we can find saving truth in the Scriptures. I would agree with this, as does the new universal catechism; however, that is a different concern from the matter of immediate and full understanding of each text. The very nature of the Scriptures, as the inspired Word of God, defies any such categorization by anyone. There may be scholars and religious leaders more attune and aware of the meanings than others; however, the depths of the Word can no more be exhausted than Christ, himself.

You challenge the assertion made on pages 153-154 of The Faith of Millions: "The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members." I think I see why I am confused by some of your statements. You are viewing the matter of Church intervention in opposition to the saving truths found in Scripture. Hum. I would suggest that the sufficiency of truths found in the bible for salvation is again an entirely topic than the matter breached by the book just mentioned here. The fact of the matter is that in a practical sense, the bible does not dictate all the duties of the Christian membership. Pastor Smith may have a special job for you. Besides a calling to follow Christ you might also hear a call within a call, like evangelizing on the Internet. The Catholic faith would find little fault with the argument that our general discipleship is set before us in the bible. The problem would be in the various manifestations by which we respond to God. It would seem that the difference upon this question between many Protestant churches and the Catholic Church is one of scope and size. Rules for good order and discipline, the writings and lives of holy men and women throughout the ages, the development of rituals and prayer forms, the distinction of various states of life, etc. would all seem natural and happen even in varying degrees in Protestant communions.

It is true that John 20:30 says that "many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book." But as you conclude in the citation, what was given was deemed sufficient to plant the seed for a saving faith in the Lord. Similarly, you quote John 21:25. You are wrong if you think this contradicts Catholic teaching.

You fault the doctrine of a teaching office in the Catholic Church functioning as the official interpreter of the Scriptures. Okay, but in all that you preach and write, you are also functioning as such an interpreter. Sometimes Protestants can be just as dogmatic as Catholics, too. We say we are open to the ideas and arguments of others, but bend over backwards picking any straw in the wind so as not to falter. It is very comforting for many people to believe that there is an authority where in a mass of confusion, "the buck stops." Having explored Catholic Scripture scholarship of late, it seems to me that there are very few texts, given the whole of the bible, that the Magisterium has given definitive guidance upon. Many of the commentaries and bible dictionaries published under Catholic auspices are authored by teams of Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic experts. Students of faith like myself are well read in Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, and host of other authorities from our common Christian heritage. The Catholic Church, as Pope John Paul II has remarked, does not have an exclusive patent to the truth.

I will skip the Scripture quotations you piled upon Catholicism toward the end of this section, they have more to say about your dislike for that institution than how God might see it. You might not agree with each and every official take on a Scripture text, although rarely are texts given one and only one level of meaning. However, this same teaching Church has also defended some truths which might be dear to your heart: that there is one God and that he is triune; that Jesus is true God and true Man; that he really suffered, died, and rose again; that his sacrifice on the cross redeems us from the devil; that by faith and baptism we are born again to eternal life; etc. I may be wrong about this sampling in regards to your own faith, if so, which of these magisterial interpretations would you renounce?

Saving other responses for later, I will leave you with a prayer:

Lord Jesus, Man of Sorrows, You are the thorn-crowned Head of the Creation, in whom it has pleased the Father to unite all things in Heaven and upon earth. Have mercy on all those who have been crushed by the pride and ambition of tyrants and grant to a tortured humanity leaders who will combine power and authority with goodness and humility. (We Fly to Thy Patronage - An Ecumenical Guide for Catholics and Orthodox, p. 28).

Peace.
Fr. Joe

To David: Letter 1 to An Anti-Catholic

Dear David,

When I discovered the website, Roman Catholic Faith Examined!, I noted that you had attempted at least one debate with a Catholic and were starting another. I am not much for debates, however, curiosity about you immediately directed my attention to your testimony, "Why I Left the Catholic Faith."

After revealing that you had two brothers studying to be priests (did either complete the formation?), you relate that the first reason you left the Catholic Church was because Catholics do not have a right attitude toward the truth. This made me stop for a moment. I have known Protestants with the same negative attitude you attribute to Catholics. They would never inspect a Catholic bible, read a Papal encyclical, or study such a wordy volume as the new universal catechism. Indeed, the book, Surprised By Truth, edited by Patrick Madrid, seemed to substantiate the fears of some that exposure to Catholic materials might lead Protestants into the camp of Rome. The book, as the cover purports, presents "eleven converts" who cite "biblical and historical reasons for becoming Catholic."

You assert that Catholics are "not allowed" to look at books that disagree with the tenets of Catholicism. Perhaps this was the case in the early 1960's in some places, but Catholic institutions of higher learning today are renown for their tolerance of differing viewpoints. The only Catholic school supported by a national collection, The Catholic University of America, has two Lutheran ministers and an Episcopal priest teaching theology. Catholic consortium programs for religious study in Washington, D.C. are composed of instructors from various faiths, including Evangelical and Baptist. Georgetown University even has an Atheistic Linguistic Analysis professor teaching philosophy. As for books, the Index is no longer published. I have been informed that the publishing explosion and also the educational maturity of people, at least in parts of the West, was among the reasons for the change. Although, speaking from my own experience, there still seems to be a great many gullible people.

As to this openness toward the truth which you applaud, is there any age limitation you would insert? Can a child or young teenager be exposed to differing religious views, or just grownups? Do they not need an established base from which they can render evaluation and, if need be, revision? Would your willingness to test truth include other areas? This is very much in the news regarding allowing both creationism and evolutionism in the schools. But, how about multiculturalism, value-free sexual education, homosexuality sensitivity, Marxist theories, revisionist histories, etc. Would you encourage your own good Protestant people to become exposed to the ideas of a secular or even a pagan world, let alone Catholicism?

A few years ago, Cardinal Hickey, Ordinary for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., seriously challenged Georgetown University not to forfeit its Catholic Christian identity. He protested a one-sided debate about abortion (sponsored by Planned Parenthood) and the administration's failure to put crucifixes or crosses in the new classrooms. I have to say that I side with the bishop on these issues. Maybe I am not as enlightened as you?

It seems to me, whether for good or ill, the Catholic Church often followed her maternal instincts in seeking to guard her people from harm. She had a clear sense of the truth, as well as what constituted right and wrong. She earnestly desired to transmit this message. Naturally, she resisted those forces or ideologies which conflicted with hers. Just as Christians are warned to avoid bad companions who might lead them into sin; so too did she steer her children from dangerous ideas. The fact that "some" non-Catholics put Protestant and Catholic teachings side-by-side and opt to embrace what they see as the truth in Catholicism nullifies the contention that conscientious searchers would always do the opposite. People may convert for very sincere reasons after serious intellectual inquiry. However, others, both Catholic and Protestant, may be ill-equipped for such an enterprise. We are probably both acquainted with people who seem to swing which ever way the wind blows. They may not be bad people. It may just be that their gifts for such scrutiny are minimal. Personality may also have much to do with it. Several years ago I noted that the membership in the charismatic renewal groups tended to have dependent personalities. They quite readily followed strong authority figures. Elements of their speaking in tongues also seemed to mimic the sounds made by the leader. Without responsible and faithful leadership, such prayer groups could go in undesired directions. The Catholic Church has long seen this dilemma. It is no accident that the Scriptures speak of the sheep and the good shepherd. We are not all leaders.

I suspect that we might also have to see ourselves from the perspective of the Catholic leadership: if small Protestant fundamentalist communities suddenly found themselves being the dominant religion, how willing would they tolerate the exposure of their adherents to ideas they consider seductive, heretical, and dangerous? Not for long, I suspect.

Trying to transmit the history of the Church or the stories of Scripture to times and places of great illiteracy, the Catholic faith resorted to physical representations and stained-glass windows. What is the old saying? Oh yes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." In any case, the main objective was to transmit one's perception of the truth. At the same time, Christianity, as opposed to the contemporary moral and historical revisionism, would contend that truth is not simply what you want it to be, truth is what it is. There is an objective quality to truth.

The difficulty that Catholics often have in dialoguing and/or debating with non- Catholic Christians is that depending upon what category of Protestant is currently available or popular, the so-called certain and self-evident Scriptural truths vary. I have noticed that even on the Internet, many groups concur in their dislike for Catholicism but are not in absolute agreement with each other on other matters. Maybe Protestant believers also need to put their claims side- by-side to help determine the truth. But then, how would it be determined? Who would have the last word? No, I guess that would not work either.

My own sense of the truth in my faith is not simply the product of training or indoctrination. As a supernatural gift, it is based on the reality of divine revelation: the Word of God. While I adhere to various structures to nurture and to safeguard this trust and faith, I also admit that my sense of certainty finds confirmation by God's grace. It is my opinion that God always offers direct help to those who pursue him and his truths with integrity and humility. Study, prayer, and charity are the hallmarks of the life we would all do well to follow.

Maturity as a human being, Catholic or Protestant, should mean some degree of toleration for the fancy of others and respect for differing opinions. It does not mean religious relativism or capitulation. The methodology of an ecclesiastical community, either toward ecumenism and dialogue or toward a ghetto mentality and "error has no rights" does not ultimately speak to the orthodoxy of its truth claims.

Goodness, my reflection upon your story only covered a page-and-a-half of your testimony. With your leave I will save other comments for future correspondence. Scripture usually understands truth in terms of fidelity. May we both be ever faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peace,
Fr. Joe

P.S. There are several Scriptures I have taken to heart:

[RSV - 2 Timothy 3:5-9] ...holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

[RSV - Ezekiel 13:3,6,9] Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! ... They have spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, 'Says the Lord,' when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. ... My hand will be against the prophets who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel: you shall know that I am the Lord God.

[RSV - 1 John 1:5-10] This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Come Home to the Catholic Church

Testimonies of former Catholics are always tragic and often tainted by doctrinal distortion. Such is the case with Sandy Hooper's tale posted on the Internet under Independent Baptist Churches. Please pray for those who are lured away from the true Church, particularly when they have been failed by those charged with their faith formation.

http://www.sounddoctrine.com/hooper.htm

An Open Letter to a Former Catholic:

Dear Sandy,

If it were not for the tragedy that befell you and your abandonment of the Catholic faith, your recollections of your first communion and confirmation would have been quite beautiful. Please find it in your heart not to condemn the Church or the priesthood for the failings of the perverse clergyman who took advantage of you. You had every right to be shocked and angry. He will have much for which to account when he meets the Lord. I can understand the nature of the obedience you were taught to render to the priests; however, I am at a loss to fully comprehend how a young person preparing for confirmation would have acquiesced to what was clearly wrong. Even your parents cannot demand obedience, if such is toward evil acts. The fourth commandment requires that we honor our parents, and even our spiritual fathers, but it is conditional upon them being honorable. In any case, you were an innocent school girl and the fault was his. It must have been a month-and-a-half of torture. Despite all this, you continued your catechetical studies and at 16 desired to enter the convent.

It is here that the story becomes troubling. You dropped out of high school and thus had trouble finding an order that would accept you, that is until you contacted the Sisters of St. Martha. Despite the fact that you had abandoned your studies, you seemed to resent the fact that yours was a domestic order charged with the household chores for priests and brothers. While I know you would render protestation otherwise, it seems to me that you lacked the humility which categorizes such women and which aids their growth in holiness, by doing the ordinary tasks of life. Their life was hard, but supposedly you had chosen it. No one forced you into the convent. You say yourself that the silent time was to aid the sisters in concentrating on God. As for the quality time, the recreation was for more than playing pool, it was to help you develop "communio" with the other sisters. Were they not your friends?

Your testimony about not reading and studying the bible seems to place yourself more at fault than the institution. Your breviary prayers, the Mass, and your bible were to be prime sources of Scriptural richness, and you failed to fully utilize them. As is typical of dependent personalities, if no one told you to do something, you did not do it. As a possible kindness, knowing that you had quit school and that others were probably in the same situation, I have to wonder if the matter of bible study was not pressed because of concerns regarding literacy and intellectual competency? You make a big deal in complaining about all the prayer as if that somehow absolved you from picking up your bible more often. Sorry, it does not wash.

You became angry when another sister was required to leave. This intensified when you rejected the slogan, "Many are called, but few are chosen." However, it has to do with a religious vocation and not our common baptismal mission. The former sister could still serve God. You missed the point. However, I suspect that your decision to leave the convent was the right choice, given that the gravity of this commitment and your faith "didn't make sense" to you.

You remained, however, "in Romanish chains" as you put it, saying your rosary and going to Church. I have to wonder if you ever internalized the external devotions and your participation at Mass? I doubt it. You remained empty. You wanted a quick fix religion. You wanted a faith with fireworks, a show with Mary appearing to you and supernatural interventions. Even your penance was all done to be seen, crawling up the stairs of the shrine on your knees while failing to raise your heart up to the Lord. Penance is the joining of our crosses to the cross of Jesus; stripping away various gifts that we might better set our eyes upon the divine giver. Your lack of humility emerges from your testimony, "I must prove I am worthy." How can you prove that which is a lie. Catholicism teaches that we can be made holy by God's grace, but ultimately we are all sinners in need of a redeemer. Every Catholic is to set his sights on heaven, knowing that he can only reach that promised shore through divine assistance and intervention.

What you experienced at La Salette was a healing service, not unlike those conducted in Pentecostal circles. The "sleeping in the Spirit" experience is said to come over a person as a great peacefulness. Paraliturgical in nature, there is nothing official about it in Catholic teaching. However, since the priest calls upon the healing power of Christ and invokes the Holy Spirit, I think we can trust that it comes from God. This is not to exclude that mentally or emotionally disturbed individuals might parrot a genuine spiritual experience as part of their malady.

I only refer to this latter point because you admit to attempting suicide twice. Later you gravitated to a "charismatic" parish. The very thing which impressed you most, the elongated sign of peace with the priest leaving the altar is a violation of liturgical discipline and good taste. And yes, as you observed, speaking and even singing in tongues is an aspect of their spirituality. As in many charismatic prayer groups, anti-Catholic pentecostals had infiltrated the music ministry which you joined. They put receiving Jesus in the spirit and the laying on of hands as something akin or even more important than sacramental baptism. You could hardly condemn the true Church for these happenings. As for the book given you on the subject, it was written by pentecostal Episcopalians, not Catholics!

As for your bible study, how do you know that you are not still falling for false doctrine? Can you trust yourself as an infallible authority in this regard? Ah, how little you still know . . . It is not surprising that those who disagreed with the priest went off and started their own church. That is what the early Protestant reformers did and, if you think about it, you too fell in step with this rebellion against the true Church. The fact that the priest allowed no disagreement regarding Mary, confession, the intercessory role of saints, etc. did not in itself signify that the bible contradicted these stances. Again, the matter of authority emerges. You were taught that salvation came through the Church and yet you deemed the friendship with those who maligned the Church as something equivalent to this great gift. What a pathetic story about a lonely girl. It is indeed quite sad. Your conscience would urge you to renewed fidelity to the Church, but the seed to future dissention had been planted.

You moved and drifted into other charismatic Catholic communities. You were married in the Church. The Word of God community experienced a "going of separate ways" over the concern of excessive control over members. All this has been played out before in such groups. God blessed you with four children and you had them reborn in the gift of Catholic baptism. However, your failth weakened and you stopped going to Mass.

Despite this loss of faith, you attempted to teach and to defend the faith to others. However, your errant bible study led you to dismiss the Catholic faith and her teachings. You decided to become a Protestant. Instead of conforming your mind and will to that of Christ and his Church, you sought out a community that reflected your views and feelings. In other words, you got matters backwards. This is all tragic. While God may look upon the faith and devotion of our Protestant brothers and sisters with some favor, the situation is probably quite different for one who has "personally" rejected the Catholic Church. If you had been serious, and not cowardly, you would have sought out a Catholic priest or another "knowledgeable Catholic" with whom you could have honestly explored your questions. Instead, you dismissed Catholic teaching out-of-hand, disrespected the teachers of faith, and brought shame upon yourself in the eyes of almighty God.

"Why should I believe in something that profits nothing?" Yes, and this is precisely the question I ask you for believing in the watered-down faith you now possess. Next, you write, "Where it concerns the Lord's body, we never hear John 6:63 read before communion, "It is the spirit that quikeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." Dear Sandy, I am surprised at you. Do you not know that this is a LIE? The ritual for Catholic worship is a stable affair; however, the readings are variable and come prior to communion. The Lectionary for Mass lists John 6:60-69 as falling on Sunday, the Twenty-First Week of the Year (B). Jesus is defending the truth about his statements regarding the Eucharist, not the opposite as you contend. He allows some to walk away from his fellowship rather than to alter this truth. Are you implying that Jesus is himself a liar or an amnesiac who now discounts all that he has just said? Ridiculous! The Hebrew saying, "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless," wonderfully touches the heart of this "sacramental" mystery. He affirms that his words are true, that they are "spirit and life." You fail to appreciate Hebrew forms of speech, albeit, translated through the Greek language. No doubt you will cast dispersions upon intelligent interpretation of the Scriptures, preferring fundamentalist revisions. The same Gospel pericope emerges in the liturgy during the week, on Saturday, the Third Week of Easter. You cite Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:14 against Jesus, showing clearly that you are like the murmuring Jews. They could not accept the "real presence" of the Eucharist and so they abandoned Jesus. You left the Lord and his sacrament which comes to us through the Apostolic community of the Catholic Church. Jesus asked you, "Do you want to leave me too?" And you said, YES.

As for bible translations, even the KJV is not safeguarded from error or from distortion due to the chaning meaning of words and the distance between our culture and that of the ancient Hebrews. Regarding salvation, I suspect that the KJV was the one with the agenda. Modern translations, except when they are caught up in the inclusive language nonsense, try to retain verb tenses and agreement with subjects and objects. Accepting this particular bible as entirely authoritative means that you have placed the bible of the Anglican Church and of Protestant kings and queens over that of the successors of St. Peter and the bishops. Interestingly enough, this same church which offered this translation now admits that there were thousands of mistakes made in the original texts. What, did you think Baptists translated this bible? No, not by a long-shot. Indeed, some of the attacks you make against the Catholic Church would also apply to the English Church of the Reformation. How do you rationalize this away? Why do you allow "Englishitis" to close your heart, mind, and soul to the truth. Only a counterfeit spirit would steal you from Christ's Church.

I wonder if Adam and Eve cried out, "Free at last!" when they ate of the forbidden fruit? The serpent tempted them with their own pride and that their "eyes [would be] opened." But, they were fooling themselves. Now more than ever they would "walk in darkness" and not with their loving Creator. Are you really free now?

You ask the question, "How many times do we need to be saved?" I suspect you confuse salvation with the Catholic understanding of redemption. Once baptised, always baptized. We have been bought at a great price and are called to a faith in Christ actualize by charity. The truth is not that Christ abandons us, but rather through sin we forget him. How many times have you forgotten Christ? How many of the commandments have you broken, and continue to break? Do you love your God and allow this love to overflow in a marvelous divine love of others?

Why do we repeatedly receive holy communion? Again, the answer says more about us than about God. We have a hard time keeping God at the center of our lives. The Eucharist strengthens us in our Christian discipleship and is a sacramental sign making present the Lord of life. Just as we eat and drink to preserve biological life, the Lord instituted this sacrament so that we might be spiritually nourished.

I cannot speak for whether or not Jesus will condemn you for your attack against his Church and the divine mysteries. If the rejection of the Eucharist brings judgment, then you have brought it upon yourself. "You took your chances" and left the Catholic Church. You were fearful of Purgatory and missed the meaning of God's vast mercy. They are souls on their way to heaven. What moves us toward heaven is not suffering as such; it is the purification of our hearts. Faith in Jesus is saving. And yet, how often have our hearts yearned for things forbidden us or we have not loved God as we should have. The flame of God's love rids us of those things which have no share in divine glory and mold us more perfectly into the image of God's Son. As Catholics, we realize that a believer might reject Christ and his Church, it is in this sense that the road to salvation is not smooth. However, as the funeral rites remind us, we live "in the sure and certain hope" of our salvation.

The Roman Catholic Church preserved and collected the books that make up the bible. The New Testament is the result of divinely inspired books and letters by her members. She preaches God's Word and the prayers of the Mass all have biblical parallels. Nevertheless, you state that the Church is the enemy of the bible and that she disavows any historical significance to the book of Genesis. Crazy! The Church definitively teaches that God is the Creator and that he made our first parents who fell from grace by an act of disobedience. Sin and death entered the world. But not all was lost, we were promised a Redeemer. Once more, you are inaccurate. Further, you cite Mark 10:5-8 to stress the literalism of Genesis 2 and 3 while missing the point of the text, a prohibition against divorce, that virtually all Protestant churches ignore or explain away. Despite your claim to full authority over the bible, you write: "Jesus also quotes Moses verbatim from Genesis 2:24" (Mark 10:7-8). This sentence is wrong any way you look at it. Jesus quotes from Genesis against the writ of divorce allowed by Moses. Moses himself does not appear or speak in Genesis 2:24! Jesus quotes from Genesis against divorce and classifies any subsequent marriage as adultery. Is this preached by the Baptist church? No. Only the Catholic Church still officially teaches that marriage is until "death do us part." I can also use John 5:45-47 for my own purposes. If you believed in Jesus, you would have trusted in the Church he established and continues to protect by his Holy Spirit. But, you reinterpret the words of Christ and the prophets to your own ends.

If you think that the Catholic Church has dismissed the book of Genesis and the doctrines contained there, then you have been very much misled. Original sin came into the world through the primordial rebellion and thus all need to have faith in Christ and to be washed clean in the waters of baptism. In passing, you mention the baptism of babies between 500 to 1997 AD. However, even the New Testament mentions that a whole household (including babies no doubt) might be baptized upon accepting Christ. The Church goes back directly to Jesus.

The various texts you draw out against Catholic practices are indeed non-topical. You take passages out of context and give them new meanings. Please cease your assault, dare I say RAPE, of the Word of God!

You attack the following:

• the intercessory role of the saints by quoting Job 15:15;
• the sinlessness of Mary by quoting Leviticus 12:8; Romans 3:23; Luke 1:47; and Luke 2:22,24;
• the honor showed Mary by quoting Luke 11:27-28;

The reference to Job discounting the saints is similar to chapter 4, verse 18: "Lo, he puts no trust in his servants, and with his angels he can find fault." All this is to emphasize the singular fidelity of Job who suffers, seemingly through no fault of his own. And yet, all fall short of the glory of God. Every living thing is dependent upon him. The holy ones, the saints and angels, cannot save us; however, they can pray for us and watch over us as special messengers of God. The verse cited against the saints really says nothing about their ability to pray for us.

I find the reference to Leviticus quite odd. Ritual atonement had to do with being put back into right relationship with God, not simply in terms of eternal salvation, but as a member of God's chosen people. There is nothing wrong with this in regard to Mary (Luke 2:22,24). She was a Jewish woman who followed the rituals and teachings of her faith. The ritual of purification becomes for her more of a presentation of the Christ-child as the long-awaited Messiah. If true justification comes through "faith in Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:23), then obviously this ritual of purification could not do what faith and baptism would in the new covenant of Christ. Indeed, the passage you cite, Luke 1:47 from her Magnificat helps to prove the Catholic stance. Note that she says, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior." She does not say in Christ who "will be" my savior. Although the passion, death, and resurrection is still thirty plus years in the future, she ALREADY calls God her "savior." How can this be if she is still not saved? The Catholic Church teaches that just as we are touched by the saving activity of Christ by faith and the sacraments, particularly baptism, FORWARD in history; Mary is touched by the saving merit of her Son BACKWARD in time, at the very first moment of her life in the womb of St. Ann. This honor was granted her since according to divine providence, she had been chosen as the mother of the Savior. Further, since original sin is transmitted from one generation to the next, it was only fitting that Jesus not be touched by sin in the womb of Mary.

The last bit dishonors your own motherhood. Some fundamentalists act as if they are embarassed that Jesus even had a mother. Jesus loved her. Jesus obeyed the commandments and honored his parents, God first, then his foster father Joseph and his mother Mary. We imitate Jesus by loving and honoring her. Luke 11:27-28 is no rebuke of Mary. It has never been interpreted by believers as such until after the reformation. "While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed,' He replied, 'Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.'" The woman in the crowd praised Mary because she was his biological mother. Jesus raises her honor even higher. Long before she had born him in her womb and nursed him at her breasts, she had, as the handmaid of the Lord, received him in her heart and soul. She received the Word of God and kept it, allowing it to come to fruition in her. She was the first disciple of her Son, bearing the Christ in her arms in Bethlehem and again at Calvary. Jesus expanded her motherhood; he did not repudiate it. According to the gift of grace, and living by faith, we are also to receive God's Word and to give it birth in a world still hungering for meaning and salvation. We are also called to be disciples.

It is my prayer that you will reconsider. Talk to a holy and informed priest, and come home.

Peace and blessings,

Fr. Joe Jenkins

Postscript

You admit that you are depriving your children of the sacraments. God forgive you such a terrible thing. You will be quite surprised when you see your Savior, even without your modern imaginery Rapture. May you make peace with Christ and his holy Church. Do not allow the poor witness or novel teachings of those either inside or outside the Catholic Church to steal this great treasure from you. Jesus offered his life as a perfect oblation on the Cross for you. He shed his blood to save you from your sins and to grant you a share in eternal life. Now we can join ourselves to our Savior as one offering acceptable to the Father. This is a key meaning of the Mass. COME HOME, come home to JESUS and to his CHURCH.

YES, Jesus is the ONE MEDIATOR! (1 Timothy 2:5). Love Jesus and obey God's commandments. YES, imitate Mary in hearing the Word of God and keeping it, allowing it to be fruitful in us! (Luke 11:28). YES, we are saved by GRACE ALONE, but not by faith alone! (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Oh yes, and REMEMBER: "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

And yes, REMEMBER THIS TOO: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? . . . So also faith itself, if it does not have works, is dead. . . . Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. . . . See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:14,17-18,24,26).

Life After Death, Saints, Traditions, Art & Holiness

A Response to Jimmy Swaggert Ministries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Catholics Really Believe in Life After Death

You spend one third of your document on closing comments. To make sure that you attack everything in sight you make some running remarks. You condemn Purgatory as a second chance after death; although it simply represents the final purging from sin necessary in those who have already been gifted (not earned) heaven (pp.41-43). Only those who have not been totally perfected in Christ endure this final weaning from sin and cleansing. If someone hates God and has damned himself, no amount of prayers will save him. I will not quote 2nd Maccabees, realizing that your tradition censored it out of the bible. We pray for these dead because we acknowledge our solidarity to one another. It is the response God wants of us to show our fraternity.

The Saints Reflect Christ

You use dishonestly the style of saying, "I could speak of...," and then speaking your mind all the same. You would discount the prayers of the saints and thus impute a disbelief in Christ's resurrection, that he and all who believe in him, are alive! Easter is the great feast which reminds us that love is stronger than death. Those who have gone before us, continue to love us in that one great love of God. Like the answer of a child in a church regarding saints, she looked at the stained-glass, and responded, that saints are those who let the light shine through. This is the kernel of this mystery. That as new Christs, the saints are totally and completely dedicated to Christ. The Light of Christ, and no other, shines through them to us. We even find examples of this in this life with certain special people who are so filled with the presence of Christ that we feel the divine very near. We ask their prayers and help above just as we would ask a friend who is still in pilgrimage with us here below.

Saints are canonized, not with any right or ability of the Church to vote anyone out of heaven, but to offer up good and holy men and women as examples to us of different ways in following in the footsteps of Christ (p. 44).

Valuable Traditions

As for the ancient traditions, I already mentioned that celibacy as mandatory for Western priests only goes back to the eleventh century; you give the date as 1079 under Pope Gregory (p. 44). This and eating meat on Friday are simply disciplines. As for the manner of going to confession, such things are admittedly variable. Even today, there is both the confessional booth, face to face, individual practices, and community penance services. It is the fact of this sacrament and not the manner that is at question. There the early Church and even the bible do speak.

The Church did not simply decide out of air in 1870 at the first Vatican Council that the Pope was infallible. Again, you are repeating yourself (p. 45). God help us, some of the things you say are so ill-conceived! Jumping to the subject of Mary again, you claim that the teaching of Mary's assumption only goes back to 1950 under Pope Pius XII. The whole Church was polled regarding that issue and it was found to conclusively believe it. In regards to the bishops this is a visible example of their unity or collegiality; in regards to the laity, it is what is called the affirmation of the "sensus fidelium" of the Church. The teaching was ancient, although only recently defined. The Orthodox believe it as well, calling it the Dormition of the Theotokos, although they have not issued any kind of official pronouncement. You lie when you say that it was not Catholic teaching prior to 1950. There are even ancient icons which display it. The only controversy regarding tradition was whether or not she died or not. She was held to be preserved from corruption. It was the witnessed experience of the early Church, which had not even formulated the canon of the Scriptures for several centuries yet, that we have preserved and protected. Alongside this, you criticize the teaching of her Immaculate Conception once again, defined on December 8, 1854.

The Value of Art

As for graven images, there is always the danger that the simple will give too much attention to the statue and to little to the figure it signifies. However, the use of Deuteronomy as you have it was not the way the Jewish community of Jesus' time interpreted it. Early Christians, especially in a pagan culture would be careful to either destroy or appropriate statues in order to give them a Christian significance. They should lead us to prayer and not be a hindrance to it. The Orthodox developed icons as sort of a compromise between overly realistic figures and none at all. They would almost even designate icons as being a focus for venerating Christ present in the community. I can see no easy resolution of this issue with Fundamentalists. The Puritanical mind set will never appreciate the ability of art, like words, to help raise one's mind and heart to heavenly matters. As for candles and incense, the candle is an ancient symbol for Jesus, burning himself up to give us light (truth) and warmth (healing). The smoke of incense is connected with our prayers which we also raise up to heaven (pp. 46-47). Your inordinate stress upon the written word might allow some room for the poetic, then why not for the artistic as well?

Look in the Mirror - You Are the Cult

Dear friend, the Catholic Church is 850 million and counting, [NOTE: a billion now] reaching the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In comparison, you are nothing. When your days are through, you and your cult, will disappear like so many others before. You and your personal and often fraudulent interpretation of the Gospel claims not merely parallel authority, but even worse, seeks to be in competition to the Word of God. We are no contempoary cult, but the Church of Jesus Christ (p. 48).

More Deceit

Over and over again you repeat your untruths. The timelessness of the maturing truths of the Church stand in contradiction to your opinion that they are fickle and change yearly (p. 49). Quite frankly, most dissenters are upset because the Church is so staunch in upholding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Wholly Holy Catholic Bible

Your haranguing becomes virtually impossible to endure in the final pages of your letter. You say the Catholic Church has no authority and that the bible was never delivered to it (p. 50). And, I say to you that the churches written to in the Scriptures were indeed one and the same with the Catholic Church of today. We are in communion with them just as the various local churches were in communion with each other then. It was members from this one faith that we have the various letters and Gospels of our New Testament. One Catholic evangelist recently joked, "It was a pity that we Catholics did not get a copyright on our book!" There is truth to this. It was even the Church which would decide which materials to include in the bible. Indeed, some of the literature of tradition, and therefore not viewed as inspired by God, was the Didache (which almost made it), the Revelation of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. It was only with the Synod of Rome in 382 AD (West) and the Synod of Carthage in 397 (East) that the present canon was set.

You Discount Holiness

After this interlude regarding the bible, you return to your objections to the Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Apostolic Succession; you mention confession for the third or forth time; and you reject the value of tradition. You discount the holiness and wonders of the Church to criticize what you consider to be iniquity and unthinking superstition (p. 52). And yet, is your camp any better off by accepting a fundamentalist approach to the bible, neglecting the various literary styles, use of hyperbole, myth, and poetic license? Are your members better off shaking in the ecstasy of only God knows what kind of spirits moving them? Are you and they any less sinners? Can you say this?

Gift's From God's Church

You say that the bible does not rest with any denomination; to an extent this is true (p. 52). The Catholic Church has offered it to the world, not to be distorted, but to be raised up as the standard of our faith and as the Word of God. However, when you extend this argument to the "keys" or authority of the Church, you fall straight on your face (p. 53). You would seek to steal these keys from Peter and take unto yourself the special authority to wield the Scriptures. You will not take advise from your own leadership or from any one else's. You denigrate and mock the first of all Christian communities, the Roman Catholic Church. You decry her as the anti-Christ, and thus jeopardize your soul by aiding the atheists and bigots of the world in their two-thousand year quest to destroy the Church founded by Jesus. I am fearful of what will become of those who folow you. Will their ignorance save them? Will it save you?

Incompatibility with Catholicism

You acknowledged that many of your Catholic friends would be angered by this message and never turn to your television program again (p. 55). Maybe this is for the best? You make clear that you view it as impossible for the Catholic Christian priest, nun, or layman to be both loyal to you and to remain in the Catholic tradition. Here is honesty at long last. I promise that in Christian love and charity, I will continue to pray for you.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
A Catholic Friend

Sin, Grace & Mary

A Response to Jimmy Swaggert Ministries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Sin and Grace

Catholic doctrine does not say that one becomes saved through confession (p. 35). I believe I explained earlier the Catholic position here regarding hope. Being in "a state of grace" or filled with God's presence is different. Let me offer an illustration. A man is filled with faith as his Lord and savior. He is baptized (born-again), becoming a Christian with all his sins forgiven. However, even as a good man, he might occasionally commit little or venial sins. His general direction still tends toward God, although small sins have the tendency to expand into larger ones. Simple acts of contrition would suffice to cast off the yoke of these transgressions. However, when he begins to plot infidelity and later in its commission, he sins mortally, committing sins of a more serious nature. Vice supplants virtue and iniquity displaces grace. Only he and God can read his soul with perfect accuracy to say whether he has made a fundamental option toward or away from God. However, there are hints. Is he dishonest? Is he manipulative? Is he selfish? If more and more of these answers are contrary to God's will, then a state of grace may indeed be lost and an actual hatred for God and neighbor could be nurtured. What do you think would have happened to such a soul if the man died from a heart attack while commiting a serious transgression like reading pornography or indecent voyeurism? Note that for Catholics, the regeneration of baptism is not repeated with subsequent baptisms, even after serious sin. It has a permanent character and in this sense is similar to the Protestant notion "once saved" then "always saved". However, Catholics hold that a good faith can sour and one can renege on the gift of salvation.

Repetition and Belief

It is at this point that your letter begins to repeat itself, I suppose with the expectation that if you repeat something long enough, no matter how ridiculous, someone will start to believe it: that Catholics see Mary's intercession as more efficacious than Christ's (p. 38); that there is a confusion of the Son (our Redeemer) with the Father (p.38); that Mary could replace Jesus as our Mediator (p. 38); and that veneration of Mary displaces the adoration which belongs to God alone (pp. 38-39).

Mary: The Fruit of a Holy Home

How dare you imply that there is no evidence regarding the parents of Mary when history and common sense offers us valuable data (p. 39)? St. Ann is the name of her mother which comes down to us. Tradition is divided over the name of her husband, although some sources give the name, Joachim. The Church in which I celebrate is named after St. Ann. [NOTE: And I subsequently worked at St. Mary's Church.] I take your blemishing of her memory as an insult against this entire community! Do you suppose that Mary had no parents at all? Do you suppose a flower as holy as Mary could have not been nurtured in a saintly home?

Truth About Mary

Your ignorance of Catholic theology regarding Mary is appalling for one who would seek to be critical of it. You state that the first Christians rendered no Marian worship, no prayers to her (including the "Hail Mary'), and knew nothing of the dogma of her Immaculate Conception (p. 39). The first part of the "Hail Mary' is voiced by an angel. The Church quickly respondes with the second verse. The teaching of her sinlessness might have only existed in a most embryonic state, but such would reach a unanimous consensus over the course of centuries. All these things find their roots in the early Church community. First, neither the ancient Church nor the contemporary one worship Mary in the same way as God; she is a creature, although elevated, and any misplaced worship to her would be tantamount to idolatry! We venerate her as holy and special and as someone who makes Christ especially present for us. We treat her with respect and love. Do you do the same towards the mother of your Savior? Second, the teaching regarding her immaculate conception and perpetual sinlessness are the same. This does not violate the reality that Christ is the only Savior of all, including Mary. The only difference is that Mary would be his first disciple, the first touched by the saving and forgiving power of the cross. For that which we receive in baptism, after the fact of Christ's Paschal Mystery, now reaches backward in time to the very conception of Mary, so that she may from the beginning be a pure and pleasing vessel through which the Lord might enter into the world. She was free and yet she chose to avoid sin in her personal life. This may seem impossible for us who enter the world already tainted by sin, and yet what is impossible for man is feasible for God. This is how the Church sees the problem of her need for Christ reconciled. It is the ancient and eastern appreciation which even makes the Mass, not to mention, the other sacraments possible. The power of Christ cannot be locked into any particular time of human history. It reaches out from first century Palestine and becomes present in our midst today. Third, Mary, as the queen of the saints, is a most perfect window, allowing the light of her son to shine through without any obstruction. Consequently, any prayer directed toward her is presented to the Lord. Indeed, some have said that this window to the divine helps to make the Lord more present to our hearts; her being magnifies (gives glory) to God. Fourth, to say that there is no Ave Maria even in the beginning is to neglect the significance of the angel's words to Mary or of those of the person in the crowd who would one day say a blessing for the breasts that nursed Christ and the womb which brought him forth. Do you recall Christ's response in Luke 11: 28? "Rather," he replied, "blest are they who hear the word of God and keep it." This was no cut down of his mother. It was a veneration of her that excelled the physical reality of her motherhood; before she accepted him into her womb, she had already acknowledged him in her heart and mind. Now, we have the opportunity to be like her, handmaids to God and his will for us. You are quick to point out texts, that would seem to belittle this, but the truth is too clear to be diminished.

Celibacy as Normal, Priest as Father, Christ's Death & the Mass

A Response to Jimmy Swaggert Ministries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Being Unmarried - A Normal Alternative

In speaking about priests, you consistently harp about the issue of being unmarried. Is it a sin to remain single and chaste? Jesus did not get married and have intercourse with women, did this erode the effectiveness of his priesthood? Certainly you cannot be a fan of that blasphemous film, "The Last Temptation of Christ," in which our precious Lord is made to look like a bi-sexual, wimpish fool? Seriously, both the single state and the married are natural options; it is only when people engage in unlawful sexual practices that perversion is encountered. As a confessor of souls, I urge people to live chaste and holy lives, to repent from sin; I also beg them to bring their "accomplices" in sin to Christ's mercy and salvation. It is my trust that you have done similar things in your struggle as a pastor and as a Christian man.

Juvenile Views of Priesthood and Confession

Did your explanation of priesthood and confession find its source in the ramblings of a confused child? Or, maybe ir emerged from an adult who never allowed his faith to mature? I have already explained that Christ is the one high priest in whom the priest in a sacramental fashion represents for the community. In him, it is Christ forgiving sins. To convict the priest and penitent of sinning by participation in the rite is blasphemous (p. 32). If you would only do more translation work regarding the presbyters of the bible and allow for literature besides the bible, the whole picture might become evident. Indeed, if you would only more critically study your bible, problems might be more readily resolved between us. If one were to exclude everything but the bible, then even the reading of your pamphlet would be worth condemnation. Your twisting of Paul's words regarding this issue on page 33 is a disgrace I never thought I would see. Put the passages of the Scriptures in their proper context, and paraphrase them accurately!

Ironic Conjecture Regarding Immorality

Ah, and what about the irony on the top of page 34? You assert that priestly celibacy is itself the cause for the scandal of child abuse and other forms of sexual perversion. Most priests I have known remain faithful to their promise of chastity and fidelity. Most cases of abuse arise within the dynamic of marriage. Married men can also suffer from lust in their hearts. Along with Rev. Bakker, you know firsthand the weakness of the flesh. Rather than casting stones at others, we should pray and support one another in our various states of life. Nevertheless, pamphlets like this one continue to be released. The world would be a better place if more people had a healthy devotion to Mary as a perpetual Virgin, instead of concentrating on despoiling such young women.

The Question of "Father"

Finally, regarding the priesthood, you criticize the title, "Father," quoting from Matthew 23:9 (p. 34). Did you never call your male parent, "Father"? A priest in a special way is a spiritual father to many. His responsibility is not divided between a family of his flesh and blood and that of the Church. The People of God are those in whom he loves and serves Jesus. From the early morning mass to the late night sick call, he is there and he is a part of them.

Christ Died Once and For All

I wish you could get your facts straight! Each celebration of the Mass is not a NEW sacrifice of Christ (p. 34). Once again, this is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church! It is heresy and has been condemned over and over again! Christ died once and for all as a perfect and acceptable sacrifice to the Father. Let me give you a quick and grammar school explanation of what you are confused about. The Mass, which Christ asked us at his Last Supper to do in memory of him, was connected even in the Scriptures with his coming ordeal and the cross. By the way, this command of Christ institutes both the Mass and the priesthood. This connection between the Last Supper and the Cross continues in the Mass today. However, Christ cannot be put to death again; as risen, he is now beyond suffering and death forever. This is unalterable Catholic doctrine and elementary Christology. The Mass is seen as a living memorial, making present what it signifies in a sacramental fashion. To use a modern analogy, it is like a time machine, suddenly the one thing which was missing at Calvary, our union to Christ and our submission to the Father, is provided. The veil of the years are torn aside and we are there. We experience the sacrifice behind the signs of the sacrament in an unbloody fashion; however, it is the very one and same experience which Christ endured once and for all. It can be a deep theological concept. What is interesting is that even the Christians of the Scriptures, without any sophisticated philosophical categories, could come to appreciate this deep mystery. It is at the core of the gift of faith. If you cannot see evidence in history or Scripture supporting it, then you are too resistant to convince about anything. Your words on page 36 regarding this are dangerous for their persuasive disregard of the truth. I am a good bible student as well as a reasonable historian; I see evidence in the bible as well as in other literature, some contemporary to it. Have you never read these? Just as an academic exercise, are you familiar with The Apostolical Traditions by Hippolytus? If not, I would sight it as but one more example of your lack of reliable data. He offers us in the earliest centuries one of the first written records of Christian practices as well as a liturgical prayer (used at Mass).

The Mass - Christian Worship From the Beginning

The apostles celebrated the Mass in union with a regular meal. This agape (love feast) was ultimately shortened due to a lack of sharing and the difficulty of feeding a growing community. This "eighth day" (Sunday) celebration took on additional importance when the Jews believing in Christ were exiled from the synagogues (Saturday).

Peter, the Papacy & Jimmy

A Response to Jimmy Swaggert Ministries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Pope Jimmy I

If you had not been forced by your own community to branch out on your own, you would probably have done so eventually, anyway. Such a direction can be seen in your approach to Catholicism. You make the dogmatic statement that the Catholic faith is not Christian and that it is not the Church of Christ (pp. 18-19). Where do you get your certainty, obviously not from the Word of God or history? You get it from yourself, and yourself alone. If there is any spirit helping you in this matter, I assure you that it is not the Holy Spirit. Is it frightening to have all the checks removed, to be one's own church? You are now only accountable to God and to your followers. The latter might be deceived, but nothing can be hidden from God. I pray that when the fire of God's love judges me, that there might be some polished gold beneath, and not simply ashes. I believe my Pope is specially protected by the Holy Spirit, what about your papal status?

Christ the Firm Foundation

You quote the text Matthew 16:18-19 regarding Christ calling Peter the rock of his Church without any consideration for the continuing belief of the Church on this point (pp. 20-21). Would God allow his Church to err on such a basic reality for a couple thousand years? No. The fact that this rock in Greek may mean "chip" or really better, "little stone" says nothing about how it might have been translated from the original Aramaic which Jesus normally spoke. In addition, the Rock of the Catholic Church, despite your deception, has always been Jesus Christ. Remember, Peter as vicar is only seen as a steward of Christ's people until he returns again. Indeed, "little stone" would be a welcome title for the successors of Peter who also call themselves, "the Servant of the Servants of God". It is out of this whole appreciation, grandiose in a way quite different than as you might imagine, that we can speak of the Bishop of Rome being given special charge of the "Keys to the Kingdom". The Church interprets this role of making the Kingdom accessible to others as a continuing role of the Church, and not just to Peter personally. The judgment of time shows that the Church has been right all along.

Cheap Shot Against the Papacy

The Popes of the Church assume an office of leadership for a short while and then they go to God, passing on the obligation to another. They amass no personal fortune in their slavery on the behalf of the Church and mankind. Can you say the same? Christians are not immune to the contest between between Mammon and Christ in their lives. Nevertheless, you mock the popularity of the current Pope and the respect he receives from the Catholic faithful (p. 24).

Papal Authority - Your Exaggeration

When you say that the apostle Peter never claimed the power to save or damn others, you infer that the Pope attempts to take to himself such authority (p. 24). The Pope cannot control our consciences or mandate as if his fellows were robots to blindly follow Jesus. He leads, but it remains up to each of us whether we will accept or reject Jesus Christ. When the Pope canonizes a man or woman as a saint, this is simply a recognition that such a person is with God and that their life stands for us as a witness of what it means to be a Christian and that their new life is one in which they continue to love us and pray with us. The Holy Father shepherds the flock of Christ and aids them in finding salvation in Christ. The Pope does not say who is damned. Your biblical quotes, out of context, and interpreted more from your personal tastes than from a critical mastery of the texts, are too jumbled to review in their entirety.

Married and Single Priests

Be careful not to become like those who rejected or subverted Christ's message of old. Because they were blind, and yet claimed to see, their sin remained. It is at this point that you tell us that because Peter had a wife he could not possibly be a Pope (p. 26). There is no big deal about Peter being married, and no secret to Catholics, either. The Church even has art depicting him and his wife! Who is your source for this lopsided stuff? I can tell you right off, he is no Catholic. Popes were both married and unmarried in the early Church. Priests had this option all the way up through the first thousand years of the Church's history. They were allowed to get married. Indeed, there were canonical regulations regarding the maintenance of the families of priests and bishops. This is nothing novel! So what? The rule requiring celibacy (due to problems of scandal, the need for more devoted clergy, etc.) are simply a matter of discipline -- not doctrine! It could be changed tomorrow! As for Eastern Rite Catholics, they have always had married priests!

Peter Followed Christ to the Cross

There is nothing helpful or of major value in your document. Even the facts are faulty. You state without reservation that there is no biblical, literary, or historical finding that Peter ever journeyed to Rome (p. 27). Of course, you have yet to cite one ancient historical document besides the Scriptures. The testimony is beyond a doubt that Peter went to Rome and was ultimately crucified upon an inverted cross. Recent excavation has uncovered what looks to be his tomb. Paul of course would be beheaded by the empire. I have great difficulty that a so-called learned man of God could be so in error.

Unbroken Line of Popes

You interpret the text regarding the power of "losing and binding" in such a strict way that you think it applies to demonic powers and not to sin; with whom do you think our sins put us in league? You continue to misrepresent the Church regarding the forgiveness that comes only through Christ, as if we do not believe this as doctrine. As for the unbroken reign of the Popes, during the first three hundred years there are lists extent and in places of minor uncertainty regarding particular figures, we have the testimony of second, third, and fourth century authorities. The only reason for some minor irregularities in the names is because an underground, persecuted Church is more concerned about its survival than its paperwork. However, what is surprising is the long list of names, even from the first centuries, of which we are quite certain. Nor as you infer, can the Pope make any new doctrines or change commandments -- this includes the one regarding adultery (in thought, word and deed). As for his right to speak, we can all speak for God when we echo what he has revealed to us. Also, millions of people will not be lost over any such foolishness that kissing the Pope's ring could possibly save us. The Church has never taught such a silly thing (p. 30)! Who feeds you this garbage about us? You go on to ask if Peter was the first Pope, who was the second one? It is a challenge paid for by the lists of the early martyred Popes. Now, instead of you giving thanks for men of such courage and faith, you deride them and make them invisible. Linus, Cletus, and Clement would follow Peter. Indeed, a letter is extent from Clement, written about the year 95 AD in which he attempted to restore peace to a community torn by unrest in regard to the presbyteral authority. Could it be similar to the unrest you sow? Irenaeus would identify him as the Bishop of Rome and therefore, the Pope. However, this is not taken to mean that other, helper bishops, like our auxiliaries today, did not exist. Indeed, at one point there is mention of seven bishops there. You would even take away the glorious death of Peter on an inverted cross in 64 AD at the command of Nero, upon which he would follow in the footsteps of the Master. Although all salvation truth finds its source and cannot be contradicted in the Scriptures, the history and therefore the tradition of the Church continued afterwards. It is interesting that you would be willing to accept the history (perhaps) of your faith in your lifetime, but little else before since it is not black and white in the bible.

Development of Doctrine

Despite what your Dr. Lorraine Boettner says about the title "Pope" arising only in 607 AD, the fact is that the prestige and influence of the see of Peter and Paul has always set it apart from the others. Whether or not the Bishop of Rome was called the Pope or not matters little, either then or now. It is the reality and not the title that is important. As for early Popes appreciating the extent of their power, this awareness, as with our understanding of all doctrine, matures in human history. John Cardinal Newman would explain this in his treatise on the development of Christian doctrine, something every educated Christian minister has read. Of course, this does not mean the distortion or repudiation of divine truths. Revelation is given in the Word of God, in time it grows and blossoms.