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