Some General Observations About Faith

Reflections and Responses Regarding the Catholic Christian Faith

Many anti-Catholics only speak in general terms and with isolated proof texts from Scripture. Why? I suspect that their lack of background is part of it. Personal inspiration is an element of his or her faith that makes every believer into his own Pope. Anyone, who contradicts them, obviously in their own minds, is deceived and/or lost. Further, fundamentalism tends to discredit cultural and language elements, or else offers a narrow interpretation. Often believers are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Catholics, parroting their ministers and the leaders of their bible study groups. An element of seduction associated with fellowship is also at work. This emotional quality can make any rational discussion difficult or impossible. History is also avoided or skewed so as to avoid the legacy of Catholicism and its contribution to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

One critic was challenged for being too general on my message board and placed the blame on me, the moderator, because I deleted offensive posts. He then argued, no doubt from minimal experience, that such an approach was typical of Catholic priests who cannot answer and feel trapped regarding so-called biblical truths. What really troubled this priest was the total disregard for his scholarship and the objectivity of his answers. I did not make them up; they were the conclusions of learned scholars of faith, filled with the Holy Spirit.
The critic claimed that he (could it be a she?) grew up as a Catholic, received all the sacraments of initiation, and was even married in the Church. He said the trouble started when he began to read the Scriptures. I suspect that he had "some help" to come to his anti-Catholic conclusions; but, nothing is said about this.

He says he discovered the bible to be contrary to Catholic teaching and practice. He found problems with the following:

1. The claim of the Catholic Church that the bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics only.

Well, we do believe that the Catholic Church today is one with the Christian community established by Jesus and that is chronicled in the New Testament. This much is true. However, we also believe that the Holy Scriptures may be efficacious for all, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. It is in a unique fashion, "our" book, but we do not begrudge it to others; indeed, they may find true consolation and encouragement toward conversion in its pages. We are glad to have been party to its divine inspiration and composition. It is truly a gift to all humanity. An insistence that the Catholic Church (in union with our Orthodox brothers and sisters) had nothing to do with the development of the New Testament and the establishment of the canon (for both the Old and New Testaments) runs counter to the historical record. His insistence to the contrary remains unsubstantiated. Rather, he simply contends that the Catholic Church has sought to suppress the bible. This sidesteps the early history of the bible and the conflicts with errant translations.

2. He insists that there are only 66 books in the biblical canon as opposed to the 73 in Catholic bibles.

He stipulates that Catholics "added" books and yet what happened was that after fifteen hundred years, Luther SUBTRACTED books from it. He says they show no degree of inspiration and that they teach false doctrine-- in other words, things offensive to the Protestant reformers and their modern-day offspring in the world today. He says that Christians did not accept these "Catholic" books in biblical times (he must mean apostolic) and yet there is ample evidence that they did. Indeed, the Greek canon containing the disputed books was implemented whenever Jesus quoted the Old Testament in the Gospels.

He tells us that Palestinian Jews during the time of Christ had already determined the Old Testament canon. This is historically misleading because it dismisses the legacy of the many Jews of the Diaspora. The Pharisees of Palestine set up four arbitrary criteria for the biblical canon: (1) They had to be in harmony with the Torah or Law as interpreted at that time; (2) That had to be written prior to Ezra; (3) They had to be in Hebrew; and (4) They had to originate in Palestine. This immediately eliminated Judith (Aramaic); Wisdom, 2 Maccabees (Greek), Tobit, parts of Daniel and Esther (Aramaic and outside Palestine), Baruch (outside Palestine), and Sirach and 1 Maccabees (written after Ezra). All Jews did NOT generally accept this canon until a century AFTER Christ. There is evidence that the rabbinical redactor was also motivated by a concern to make the Hebrew Scriptures distinctively different from the canon used by Christians. From the earliest days, the Christian Church accepted the Jewish canon from the Greek-Roman tradition, the ALEXANDRINE CANON. As I have said before, Jesus himself quoted from this bible and the canon was not seriously challenged until the Protestant reformation. It should be noted that Martin Luther also rejected New Testament books. It is interesting that while Protestants accept Luther's abbreviated Hebrew canon, they replaced the books he stripped from the New Testament. What did he remove? He eliminated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (Apocalypse).

2. He claims that it is easy to prove the non-existence of the Catholic Church and yet he offers no real proof whatsoever.

Why? Because it cannot be done. Rather, he attacks elements of the Church that have organically developed over time. This is like saying the boy did not exist because he did not yet resemble the man.

NO POPE? - Except regarding "fatherhood" (papa/pater), the word was not used, but this does not dismiss the role of Peter and his successors. Their authority remains, no matter what they are called.

NO PRIESTS? - There is ample evidence of men who participated in the one priesthood of Christ.

NO SACRIFICE OF THE MASS? - Here is the utter dismissal of the command of Christ at the Last Supper to perpetuate it "in remembrance" of him. The cultic and sacrificial language of the setting is unavoidable.

NO NUNS? - Of course, there were holy women who from their purse aided Jesus and the apostles and later others like St. Paul.

NO MONKS? - St. Paul himself advises a celibate life and proposes severity upon himself. The evangelical counsels are in effect.

NO CONFESSIONAL? - Jesus and then his apostles would make possible the forgiveness of sins. Even today, no special room is absolutely required.

NO PRAYERS TO MARY? - And yet, there are Scriptural examples of orations to consecrated figures or spiritual messengers from God.

NO PURGATORY? - Although Jesus offered ample evidence in his statements that some would need to be purified by fire and pay the last penny.

The anti-Catholic critic throws out one issue after another, making a concerted response on any one topic difficult to impossible. He needs no evidence, the charge itself is a proof in his own reckoning and unfortunately, enough to influence weak minds.

Catholics agree that those who had a saving faith sought baptism. However, he speaks about the various local congregations as if there was no unity with one another. Just as today, in reference to the many parishes and dioceses, the Catholic Church is one. Jesus established a Church, not many churches.

He contends that bishops were only the local pastors; and yet, the history of the matter would show that as the churches grew, so did their jurisdiction. These "episcopoi" are literally the successors to the apostles and possess the high priesthood of Christ. There were many helpers, even though many human elements of the true Church would have to develop over time. Catholicism, for instance, admits that the papal electors (cardinals) represent a later adaptation to insure the smooth transition of authority and the effective running of the Church. There is no need for an absolute return to primitive Christianity. Indeed, because of the size of the Church, it would not work. Protestant communities that wipe out most Church history are forced to reinvent the wheel in this regard.

The assertion that Peter never went to Rome is a denial of archeological evidence, extra-biblical testimony, and the living tradition of the Church. Since it does not appear in the bible, such fundamentalist critics assume that it could not have happened. The anti-Catholic critic mentions the rebuke and difference of opinion from Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, but says nothing about the fact that Peter gives the decisive decision regarding the initiation of the Gentile men at the council in Jerusalem. He confuses impeccability with infallibility. Papal infallibility does not mean that popes are sinless or that every opinion they have is necessarily right. It is peculiar that anti-Catholic critics will often grant the Pope more authority in their arguments than he actually possesses. Of course, the critics save the final say to themselves.

Let me repeat, at the first council of the Church in Jerusalem, note that after the debate about ritual circumcision, it is Peter who resolves the matter. The mere fact that Paul and Barnabas had come to Jerusalem illustrated their confidence in the apostolic authority there. As in any council, there was debate and dialogue; however, in the end it was Peter who stood up and supported Paul in his refusal to impose the Mosaic law upon the Gentiles-- they would not have to become Jews before becoming Christians. Citing the work of God's Spirit in Cornelius and his household, whom they knew and accepted, Peter summarizes the core proclamation of salvation: "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they" (Acts 15:7-11). We are told that the whole assembly was reduced to silence. The issue was resolved. Paul and Barnabas then enthusiastically recounted how God had used them as instruments to reach the Gentiles.

Many distinctions need to be made about Peter. He is certainly much altered after the Christ has suffered, died, and risen. The Holy Spirit on Pentecost grants him a special charism of authority and infallibility. This did not mean that either Peter or his successors would be impeccable and unable to sin. The miraculous truth in the long history of the Church is that even weak and sinful men have seemed changed by the office of Peter. Without such an authority, we would suffer from the same endless fragmentation and deviation from Gospel truth that other religious communities experience. We believe we have Christ's Rock to preserve and protect the deposit of faith. Given to Peter, this gift of infallibility is for the entire Church. This forum demands brevity, but we see it observed when the Holy Father makes a formal proclamation of dogma as the universal shepherd (the Vicar of Christ) on a matter of faith or morals. Neither the Pope, nor the bishops, nor an ecumenical council can manufacture new beliefs-- they define something which has always been taught and believed, but reformulate it in a more concise and solemn way. A papal declaration along these terms is an exercise of his Universal Extraordinary Magisterium.

The unanimous teaching of all the worlds bishops in union with the Pope is called the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This latter expression of infallibility is much more common. The laity and the religious of the Church also enter into this mystery. The Sensus Fidelium (sense of the faithful) among Catholics who have informed their consciences according to Church teaching and who live out the faith also touch upon this mystery of faith. (Admittedly this latter aspect is usually only mentioned by dissenters these days; however, they cite people who have largely rejected the deposit of faith and the Christian life-- the ones to whom it does not really apply.)

Contrary to accepted biblical interpretation, the anti-Catholic critic notes that Peter was instead at Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). He disputes the fact that such was a word often given Rome by the early Christians. We see this again in the book of Revelation.

Obviously, as a good anti-Catholic apologist, he denies the practice of asking angels, saints, or Mary to pray with and for us. He seems ignorant of the fact that Catholicism teaches that all prayer has as its proper object, God.

He does accept the divinity of Christ, something that others reject. We can at least agree upon this point. He also acknowledges the Trinity.

He uses a double negative in saying "we don't need no mediator" except Christ in going to Father. What he actually means, and Catholics agree, is that Jesus is our Mediator before God and brings our offering and prayer to the Father. He says rightly that the bible prohibits the "worship" of graven images, and yet he wrongly accuses the Catholic Church of doing so. The economy of images is altered by the incarnation, and thus pictures and statues for Catholics are venerated as depicting holy personages or themes, but they are NOT WORSHIPPED. Only God is truly given divine worship.

Context here means everything. Otherwise, one would have to say that the Word of God contradicts itself. The invisible God of the Hebrews absolutely forbid the making of images for purposes of divine adoration. However, he did not prohibit images as such. Indeed, in the case of the ark, they were mandated. Of course, given the inclination of the early Jews to fall easily into idol worship, it is no wonder that the prohibition was often extended and made more severe.

Making a secular comparison. Many of us adorn our homes with statuary, paintings, and photographs. We have them for beauty and for sentimental reasons. Is a picture of one's child or a grandmother vain idolatry? I think not. Neither are depictions of saints and other holy personages.

The anti-Catholic critic condemns the Church for its many volumes on the liturgy and upon doctrine; and yet he makes no qualm about the many words he writes on the Internet. Why would he deny Catholics the right to share their insights and spiritual reflection upon the Gospel? Any view that does not agree with his own, he considers a twisting of Scripture. He becomes the final authority.

He condemns Catholic remembrance and prayer for the dead, dismissing the second book of Maccabees. And yet, such a practice finds other Scriptural support and is an ancient Christian practice.

Obviously, he cannot finish is demagogic diatribe without some castigation against the role of works in Catholic theology. Of course, no mention is made that many modern-day Lutherans and Catholics have come to a consensus regarding justification by faith. He creates false parodies of Catholic faith, straw man arguments, to tear them down. Catholics also teach and preach Ephesians 2:8-9:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast."

Salvation is a gratuity from God. The work that saves is the self-offering of Christ. Apart from Christ, we cannot save ourselves.

The anti-Catholic critic says he does not condemn the Catholic Church, but after he has finished, that is precisely what he has done.

At points the anti-Catholic critic spouts silliness. He suggests that the Catholic Church disregard all its doctrines for the so-called true Gospel. And yet, her doctrines represent the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Catholics would agree with him that men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the bible. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

Catholics would agree that Jesus is our one Mediator who makes possible our entry into heaven. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

Catholics contend that Jesus rose from the dead. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

Catholics contend that Jesus is God and man. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it?

The anti-Catholic critic paints with broad strokes and condemns what he does not understand. Many Catholics in the past were poorly instructed and their ignorance became fair game for religious bigots and fanatics. It is truly sad.