So Who Knew?

Few people have a biography as interesting as Rosalind Moss’ life story. Born into a Jewish family, Moss grew up considering herself an agnostic – perhaps there was a God, she thought, but He made no difference in her daily existence. Then one day her older brother, David, told her about the Man he had accepted as his Savior. Rosalind initially thought her brother had gone off the deep end, but she soon joined David in Evangelical Protestantism. To her horror, within two years her brother entered the Catholic Church, which Rosalind considered to be a false belief system. It took over a decade and a half before she, too, became Catholic. Her journey, however, was only beginning – Rosalind Moss is now
Mother Miriam of the Lamb of God, O.S.B., and has become the prioress of a new religious community, the Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope.

One paragraph in Rosalind’s amazing conversion story really got my attention. Back when she was still agnostic, her brother told her about Jesus Christ:

David brought me an article that said there were Jewish people who believed that Christ was the Messiah. I asked my brother, ‘You mean to tell me that the Messiah was already here? That He was the only hope the world ever had, and yet the Jewish people didn’t know this? That He came and left and there has been no impact, no change, no peace? That’s just insanity.’

When I first read Rosalind’s reaction to what is, after all, the Good News, I laughed. It struck me as exceedingly strange that she or anyone should feel the way she did about the advent of the Messiah. Nobody knew? For Heaven’s sake, woman, the First Coming of Jesus Christ the Messiah changed the world! How can you say with a straight face that He came and left and there has been no impact?? Take the blinders off and perceive the 2,000 years of Christian history you are committed to ignoring!

Talk about missing the memo!

Of course, from Rosalind’s Jewish perspective, her attitude made a great deal of sense. It was taken for granted that Jesus was not the Messiah; therefore, 2,000 years of Christian history could be ignored without qualms. I realized that I of all people should not find this approach strange, given that as a Protestant I would have had exactly the same incredulous reaction had a Catholic walked up to me and claimed that Jesus Christ Himself established the Holy Catholic Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.

Really??? I would have laughed. What a novel approach to theology and Christian history! Where, pray tell, does Jesus say one word about the Catholic Church? Where is the word “Catholic” in the Bible, or the word “pope”? You have no biblical basis whatsoever for your laughable belief that Jesus established an earthly institution with a hierarchy, a Magisterium – a Church that teaches with authority!

Of course, I was right about the words “Catholic” and “pope” not being in the Bible. But the word “church” certainly is in there, and that was the concept that I was devoted to ignoring. Not that I was unfamiliar with verses discussing the importance of the body of Christ:

And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. Eph 1:22-23

Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. Eph 2:20-22

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. Col 1:16-17

But Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. Heb 3:6

I liked those verses – they required nothing of me. Yet for all my familiarity with Scripture, there was one verse about the church that I was unacquainted with:

…so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15

Those words that St. Paul penned to Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus, were never really discussed at the Evangelical churches I attended. Taken literally, they subvert the very premise upon which Protestantism was founded. We Evangelicals would have told you that it was the Bible which was the pillar and foundation of truth! Yet the Bible says that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church….

That changes everything….

Interestingly, both Rosalind the agnostic and Rosalind the Evangelical Christian were committed to ignoring the same pivotal passage in Matthew. When she was Jewish, Rosalind would have rejected St. Peter’s confession of faith, for he told Jesus, “You are the Christ – the Messiah! – the Son of the living God!” This concept, that Jesus was the One foretold by the prophets, was rejected by many Jews in Jesus’ day and on down through the centuries. Rosalind’s ancestors discounted the possibility that Jesus could be the Messiah, thus leaving Rosalind and her brother clueless when it came to the Good News of the advent of Israel’s Hope – she could in good faith cry out, “Who knew?” By the grace of God, Rosalind accepted Jesus as her Savior and was able to affirm with St. Peter: You are the Christ, the Messiah! But all was not yet well – her newfound spiritual ancestors, Evangelical Christians, discounted the possibility that Jesus had established an authoritative Church, and so she thought it only right to reject the words that the Messiah then answered to Simon Peter:

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”… “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mt 16:16, 18-19

Yet 2,000 years worth’ of Christians have taken those words at face value:

Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church: ‘I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they will be loosed in heaven.’ From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by the same rulers. Since this has indeed been established by Divine Law, I marvel at the rash boldness of certain persons who have desired to write me as if they were writing letters in the name of the Church, “since the Church is established upon the bishop and upon the clergy and upon all who stand firm in the faith.” St. Cyprian of Carthage, c. 250 A.D.

Two thousand years’ worth of Christians have believed in the very biblical concept of an authoritative Church, of bishops who had the right to absolve sins, to teach authoritatively, and to command, and of the bishop of Rome who was charged with feeding Christ’s sheep and strengthening his brothers in the Faith. Yet had you asked Rosalind or me, we would have asked you – where is this in the Bible??

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 18:17-18

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. Lk 10:16

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. Lk 22:31-32

And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” Jn 20:22-23

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.” Jn 21:15-17

At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry…. For it is written in the book of Psalms: “Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it” and “Let another man take his office.” Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1: 15-18, 20-25

And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. 2 Cor 10:6

We have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will continue to do what we command. 2 Thessalonians 3:14

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Timothy 1:6

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 2 Timothy 4:1-2

These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Heb 13:17

We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. 1 Jn 4:6

Talk about missing the memo.

Taking for granted the Protestant claim that each man or woman’s private interpretation of Holy Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth leaves Christians wandering in the dark, since of course the Bible nowhere teaches such foolishness, and no one believed such foolishness for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

So, you’re Catholic, and all of this is dead obvious to you, and you’re laughing. Well, it wasn’t dead obvious to me as an Evangelical – I had no clue. I believed what I’d been told, exactly as did everyone who attended our Evangelical church. We all missed the memo. When you see an Evangelical, never assume that “there goes a person who has rejected the truths of the Faith.” In nine out of ten cases, that person hasn’t ever had Catholic teaching clearly presented to him or her. Never think that that person will simply reject the truth if you present it to them. I certainly didn’t reject Catholic teaching when it was finally explained to me, and neither did Rosalind Moss. A lot of folks truly are just waiting for their Catholic friends to care enough to share the truths of the Faith with them. Really.

Please resend the memo.

 

On the memorial of St. Virginia Centurione Bracelli

Deo omnis gloria!

Alone Most Immaculate

A huge misconception exists concerning how the Holy Catholic Church comes up with its dogma. This is not surprising – the world has its own way of deciding “dogma,” and the world assumes that it uses the only method known to man. The world’s dogmas are decided by popular opinion – witness the 21^st-century popular dogma which mandates that a person should be allowed to “marry” whomever he or she feels attracted to, with the expectation that “good-hearted” people will not put roadblocks on the path to said “marriage.” As more and more people have come to embrace this belief, it has been accepted as “dogma,” and no one is allowed to contradict it. The media have taken up the cause, and now routinely paint anyone who refuses to accept the new definition of marriage as a scum-sucking heretic. The world’s dogmas, of course, blow in the wind – 100 years ago this startling proposal that we 21^st-century denizens are now required to believe on pain of ostracism would have run afoul of the sodomy laws. But, things change. Who knows what we will be required to believe tomorrow?

The world views Catholic dogma in the same light, assuming that the Church makes up Christianity as it goes along, assuming that dogma is somehow rooted in popular opinion (which is why so many look to Pope Francis to change the teaching of the Church, seeing as how so many Catholics nowadays find Church teaching on the male-only priesthood, contraception and abortion outmoded.) When the Church proudly points to the “consensus of the Fathers” on issues such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, the world hears “passed into law by majority vote.” In other words, the world assumes that the Church proclaims the Real Presence of Christ as dogma BECAUSE the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers supported that doctrine. It then follows that if a majority of Catholics lobby for same-sex marriage, the Vatican will cave. The Church’s actual position, of course, is that the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is TRUE; the fact that we have mountains of evidence from the first centuries of the Christian era that the doctrine was held by everyone everywhere does not make it any truer than it already is. That so many Fathers bear witness to the truth of the dogma is simply icing on the cake, providing a convenient argument in favor of the belief, but in no way affecting the truth one way or the other.

This is an important point to bear in mind when discussing dogma. There are people who actually believe that the issue of the divinity of Christ was decided by a show of hands. Had the vote at the Council of Nicaea gone the other way, they will tell you, Christians would be fervent Arians, espousing the belief that the Father is God, and Jesus is His son – but not divine. It was just sort of the luck of the draw, a toss of the dice that led Christianity to embrace Trinitarianism. The vote could just as easily have gone the other way….

Protestants will disagree with this assessment (good for them!), but for the wrong reasons (sigh). The Protestant response to this line of thinking seeks to point the skeptic back to the only authority Protestants recognize on this earth, Holy Scripture, insisting that the bishops at Nicaea were simply declaring the plain message of the Bible when they affirmed the divinity of Christ. The Bible, they will tell you, states unequivocally that Jesus is God. Just read through the Bible, they will tell you, and you will find verses such as:

Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. Jn 17:3

I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Jn 20:17

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Cor 8:6

Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2 Jn 1:3

Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.   Rev 7:10

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Phil 2:5-7

Wait!! Protestants will tell you – not THOSE verses. THOSE verses make it sound as if Jesus ISN’T God!!

Exactly. The Arians weren’t total idiots, and they didn’t invent their heresy out of thin air. There are many verses in the Scriptures which might lead someone to conclude that Jesus isn’t God. There are also many verses that appear to make the case that He is God. Protestants, clinging to their “sola Scriptura” error, are pretty much bound to believe that the bishops simply affirmed the clear teaching of Scripture. The problem is, the teaching of Scripture wasn’t clear – that’s how the Arian heresy got started! And since the teaching of Scripture wasn’t clear, the authoritative Church declared infallibly that the teaching of Arius deviated from the deposit of truth.

That’s something that Protestants won’t hear of, yet we see the same thing happening at the Council of Jerusalem nearly 300 years earlier. The “Judaizers” were insisting that Gentile converts must be circumcised. The controversy was decided by the apostles in council. Good luck coming up with the Bible verses that those apostles supposedly used in deciding the question: the clear teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures (the only Scriptures available at that point in time) was that Gentile converts must be circumcised. The Council, however, announced simply that “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” to proclaim that circumcision was no longer necessary. A sola Scriptura-based decision? Exactly the opposite! Were the apostles right in their decision? Absolutely! How do we know this?

The Church is indefectible.

“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” By this we understand that God will not allow the Church to formally teach error. Were the Church to dogmatize falsehood, the Father of Lies would have prevailed – it’s as simple as that. Jesus promised that this would never happen. Jesus will never leave His Church (Mt 28:20), and His Church will never leave Him by formally teaching error. He Who is faithful has promised this.

The Church Fathers never proposed that anyone take an opinion poll, formal or informal, on the doctrine of the deity of Christ or on any other issue. Rather, they suggested:

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? St. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 180 A.D.

According to Irenaeus, the bishops (AKA “those to whom [the apostles] did commit the churches”) can instruct us in following “the course of the tradition which [the apostles] handed down.” Tradition? Remember the advice St. Paul gave to the Thessalonians:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thess 2:15

St. Paul did not leave instructions behind only in written form, and neither did the other apostles. Many of the apostles penned no Scripture, and yet spent years verbally instructing those they chose to lead the churches they established. The churches were to follow not only the written commands of the apostles, but their verbal instruction, known as the ‘good deposit,’ as well. We see this reflected in the advice St. Paul gives to St. Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus:

By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. 2 Tim 1:14

Clinging to the ‘good deposit’ means, among other things, being instructed in how to understand the written word of God. When “there should arise a dispute relative to some important question” as St. Irenaeus put it, the bishops meet in council just as the apostles met in the Council of Jerusalem. Their decisions are guided by Holy Tradition and “by the Holy Spirit” – the same Spirit Who guided the decision of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem when they proclaimed not “The Bible says!” but rather “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” This is not to suggest that the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem or the bishops at the Council of Nicaea were adding new “truths” to the faith revealed to them by Jesus Christ, not at all – they were condemning opinions that strayed from that truth, namely, the heretical notion that baptism does not save us (contrary to 1 Pet 3:21) and the idea that Jesus was a creature (ignoring Jn 20:28). Dogmatic definitions, such as the one pronounced at the Council of Jerusalem, in no wise add to the deposit of faith; they merely affirm the deposit that was originally given to the Church to believe. Therefore, Catholics believe that Gentile converts do not need to be circumcised, and that Jesus is God and is truly physically present in the Holy Eucharist because we believe that the bishops, in union with the bishop of Rome, have been granted the grace of being able to declare doctrinal truth infallibly so that they may proclaim this truth to the world in the name of Jesus Christ upon Whose promises all of this rests.

This is an important point to make to your Protestant friends who find the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception “unbiblical” and who just can’t wait to point out to you that there were certain Church Fathers who believed that Mary had sinned. Not that those Protestants give a flying Fig Newton what the Church Fathers believe – they just think that Catholics determine their theology by tallying up the Fathers, and they’re sure they’ve got you on this one!

Of course there is biblical evidence of Mary’s sinlessness, most especially the theme of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant so beloved among the Church Fathers:

The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father’s bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus

As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother. St. Dionysus of Alexandria

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides. St. Athanasius of Alexandria

The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly. St. Ambrose of Milan

Many Fathers wrote specifically concerning the sinlessness of Mary:

Mary was a worthy dwelling for Christ, not because of the qualities of her body, but because of her original grace. St. Maximus of Turin

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. St. Ambrose of Milan

Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin? St. Augustine of Hippo

O admirable womb of Anne, in which developed and formed little by little an infant all-holy! St. John Damascene

My Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate . . . spotless robe of Him who clothes himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate! St. Ephraem the Syrian

Yet some Fathers, notably Sts. Basil and Chrysostom, were of the opinion that Mary sinned (not as many Fathers as online sources would like you to believe – some Fathers disputed the possibility of her immaculate conception, yet believed that she was sanctified after conception while still in the womb, and led a sinless life). Still, we can state that “The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts,” (Ineffabilis Deus) in exactly the same manner that the faithful bishops at the Council of Nicaea insisted that the divinity of Christ was believed from the beginning – despite the fact that the bishops deceived by Arius claimed otherwise! The scriptural references to the sinlessness of Mary can be overlooked or discounted – just as the Arians overlooked and discounted the biblical evidence for Christ’s divinity. Other Bible verses can be misunderstood and misused to make the claim that Mary did in fact sin – just as the Arians misunderstood and misused verses to make the claim that there is no such thing as the Holy Trinity. Discount the one dogma, and you must explain why you do not discount the other. Accept the one, and you have only subjective grounds for refusing to accept the other. The Holy Catholic Church infallibly proclaims both dogmas with the help of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ Who is with her always.

And so, we Catholics confess that “the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” This is “a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful,” just as is the dogma of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. A dogma, of course, is either true or false. It is not true simply because I believe it. It is not false because I cannot muster up the faith to believe it. The Church, the very pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15), proclaims these Truths to the world. Believe them, or don’t.

The Truth remains.

 

On the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Deo omnis gloria!

Shell Game

Eisegesis is a fifty-cent word to describe the way the Scriptures are abused when we take our own ideas and read them into the Bible. Eisegesis was the foundation of my Evangelical understanding of John chapter 6. As a lifelong Protestant, I had been taught that when Jesus said over and over and over that we must eat His body and drink His blood, or we will have no life in us, He didn’t mean what He actually said. We Evangelicals read one or the other of our two core beliefs into that passage. We believed that everything Jesus ever said or did revolved around the doctrine of sola fide (faith ALONE) or sola Scriptura (the Bible ALONE), so we interpreted “Eat My body” and “Drink My blood” to mean either “‘Eating’ and ‘drinking’ = BELIEVING!” or “Jesus is telling us to ‘feast’ on the Holy Word of God!” depending on who was preaching the sermon. The one thing that was OBVIOUS to us was that Jesus couldn’t have meant for us to take His words literally (as they were taken by everyone, everywhere for ten centuries). By the time the preacher was done, the import of the passage had been explained away quite professionally. An electric shock ran through my body when I finally sat down one day with a Bible and read John 6 with no commentary, no footnotes, and no preacher telling me what the text actually really meant. I was confronted with Jesus’ straightforward insistence that “Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” I searched in vain for the part where Jesus explained privately to His disciples that what He actually meant was that the flesh which He would give for the life of the world – which He insisted over and over again that we MUST eat – was the Bible or our faith or some such nonsense. But to Protestants, Jesus simply could not be saying what He appears to be saying here, thus necessitating a kind of magic act on the part of the interpreter, with a lightning-fast substitution of one concept for another. In my mind this conjures up a picture of a corny old-time magician waving his wand over his black top hat and calling out his magical incantation of “EISEGESIS!” – thereby changing the handkerchief which just went into the hat into a big white bunny, and the verses about the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist into yet another passage supporting sola fide or sola Scriptura. Have stranger things ever happened?

This explains why so many verses which appear at first glance to support Catholic doctrine undergo such a strange change in the hands of Protestant eisegetes. Almost all of these passages are transmogrified into references to “faith” or commentaries on the authority of Scripture. Please don’t misunderstand –according to the Holy Catholic Church, the Bible is without question the inerrant, inspired Word of God. However, the Evangelical doctrine of sola Scriptura does damage to the purpose for which God has given us His Holy Word. According to Evangelicals who promulgate the notion of “the Bible ALONE,” Holy Scripture is the only authority here on Earth to which a Christian ultimately need answer. But since the Bible itself never actually tells us this, nor can the doctrine of sola Scriptura actually be found in Scripture, the only way Protestants can maintain this insistence with a straight face is by constantly waving the eisegesis wand, reading “the Bible ALONE” and “the authority of Scripture” back into the text despite whatever the subject actually happens to be.

Magicians generally employ an assistant, and the assistant when Protestants read “the authority of the Bible” into the Bible is named “Assumption.” In order for the trick to be performed successfully, Assumption must first of all demonstrate to the onlookers that whenever the Bible discusses “the word of God,” what is meant are the Holy Scriptures. This obviously confuses the issue, making the role of Scripture seem beefier and more comprehensive than it actually is. Protestants, for example, list Eph 1:13, Phil 2:16, Ps 130:5, Lk 11:28, Deut 8:3, Is 40:8, Ps 107:20, Jn 5:24, 1 Sam 15:23, Rev 19:15, Ps 89:34, Rom 10:17, Ps 138:2, 2 Tim 3:16, and other verses as examples of the Bible’s preeminent importance in the life of the believer. Verses such as Ephesians 1:13 and Philippians 2:16 discuss “the word of truth” and “the word of life,” apt descriptions for the written word of God, but also a good way to describe God’s spoken word – as Jesus said in Luke 11:28, “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” That “word of God” Jesus was talking about could be the Scripture that was read to you this morning at Mass, or it could be His words preached live and impromptu and never written down for posterity. In other words, when the Bible talks about the “word,” it is not always the written Word (i.e., the Holy Bible) which is necessarily meant. The spoken Word is equally “the word of the Lord.” (For this reason, the Catholic Church rejects the doctrine of “the Bible alone,” embracing instead the doctrine of “the Word of God alone.”) Yet Evangelicals are in the habit of collecting such verses and pressing them into the service of their argument that the written Word, the Bible, occupies a position other than the one Catholics believe it holds. On a Protestant website, for example, you can find verses like Psalm 107:20, “He sent out His word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction,” under the heading of “The Bible is a Source of Healing and Protection” – evoking visions of a flying leatherbound KJV healing and delivering the Israelites in their distress! In an Evangelical context, the efficacy and significance of the spoken Word of God are virtually ignored, despite the fact that Jesus told His apostles quite clearly that when they preached the Gospel, their words would be His very Word: “He who hears you, hears Me.”

Check out Hebrews 3:12-19 and Hebrews 4:1-3, 11- 13. The author of Hebrews tells us how to those who came out of Egypt, the spoken Word of God was preached. The Israelites disregarded not the Holy Scriptures (which did not as yet exist), but rather the preaching of Moses, the one to whom God gave the authority to lead the children of Israel. They were disobedient to God’s commands given to them through His chosen leader:

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, while it is said, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as when they provoked Me.”

For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said….

Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

According to verse 2, the Israelites had “the good news preached” to them by Moses, just as the Christians to whom the author of Hebrews is writing had the “good news preached” to them by the apostles. The “word of God” which is being extolled in this passage is the oral preaching of God’s servants Moses and the apostles – not to say that the written Word is not equally “living and active,” but to say that Evangelicals very often disregard this detail concerning apostolic preaching or deal with it in a very perfunctory manner. That the Word of God is living and active and powerful is made abundantly clear by the Scriptures which tell us that by the word of the Lord the very heavens were made. Where sola-Scriptura Christians go wrong on this is when they blur the lines between the spoken Word of God, which created the heavens and the earth, and the written Word of God, the Bible, which did not. Verses which clearly refer to the spoken Word which either proceeds from the mouth of God Himself or from the mouth of one of His servants are drafted into the service of the “Bible alone” argument. The apostles preached the very Word of God, and thus the early Christians are admonished in Hebrews 13:7 to “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.” As a Protestant I envisioned those leaders reading the Bible to their congregation and expounding upon it. The author of Hebrews knew that many in his audience could remember the apostles speaking the Word of God to them. There’s a difference.

Beware the shell game. Protestants have invented a theological concept known as
“the authority of the Scriptures.” It is necessary to play this shell game in order to keep the doctrine of “the Bible ALONE” intact. If it can be shown from the New Testament that authority is vested in some person by God, and that that person must then be obeyed because God gave him authority, then the assertion that the Bible is the ONLY authority for Christians can be shown to be incorrect, the Reformation pillar of sola Scriptura teeters, and Catholicism begins to look a whole lot more plausible. Protestants dwell on the importance of the written Word to the neglect of the spoken Word, because the spoken Word is uttered by an authoritative speaker. This may sound like a minor detail, but he who neglects this detail becomes a mark for thimbleriggers.

The Reformers, in their desire to answer to an authority other than the one God established, that is to say, other than the Holy Catholic Church, conned their followers by substituting the supposed “authority of Scripture” for the authority of the leaders of the Church. Thus John Calvin read Ephesians 2:19-22:

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

And saw fit to compose the following commentary:

But such wranglers are neatly refuted by just one word of the apostle. He testifies that the church is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” [Eph. 2:20]. If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist. Groundless, too, is their subtle objection that, although the church took its beginning here, the writings to be attributed to the prophets and apostles nevertheless remain in doubt until decided by the church. For if the Christian church was from the beginning founded upon the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever this doctrine is found, the acceptance of it-without which the church itself would never have existed-must certainly have preceded the church. It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture.

Now you see it – now you don’t, as the Reformer takes the text of Ephesians 2:20, carefully places it under his exegetical shell, and then “Presto! Change-o!” delivers to the reader not a Church “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” as the verse reads, but rather, as Calvin put it, a church built upon “the teaching of the prophets and apostles.” Flimflam!
The teachING (i.e., the Scriptures) is now, according to the Protestant interpretation, “the foundation,” not the teachERS, the apostles themselves.

And Protestants are dazzled by the smoke and mirrors. As a Protestant blogger writes concerning this very bait-and-switch passage perpetrated by Calvin: “Thank God the Scriptures undergird the church’s practice, and govern all. Thank God for Paul, who wrote clearly, instructing us to search the Scriptures and study them in order to seek authenticity in a man’s teaching – even his. Thanks be to God for the inestimable gift to us of His Holy Word.” Amen to that last part, but where exactly does the Bible teach that it “undergirds the church’s practice and governs all”? Where? When the Judaizers disturbed the peace of the Church with their insistence that new Christians must be circumcised, the leaders of the Council of Jerusalem did not turn to the authority of the Bible. They turned to the authority vested in them by Jesus Christ, and they made the decision that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to enter the Church. Baptism is the new circumcision! as St. Paul later wrote. Had the Council relied on “the authority of the Bible,” all Christians males would to this day have to be circumcised, since the Bible at that time consisted of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament mandates this! The announcement of the Council’s decision began not with “The Bible says” but rather with “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28). The first Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42) because the apostles taught with authority. St. John insisted in his first letter that “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.” (1 Jn 4:6) – St. John, as an apostle, could say that! All this boils down to that pivotal declaration in St. Paul’s first letter to the Bishop of Ephesus, Timothy, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The majority of Protestants have no idea that that phrase is even in the Bible, for they have been taught to read diligently around that passage. I read around it for 45 years.

Protestants are, however, by virtue of their adherence to the concept of “the authority of the Scriptures” incapable of reading their Bible any other way. Take this entry on a Protestant website as an example. The writer is commenting on Jude 27. Note what, according to the writer, Jude is supposedly warning against:

Some 1,500 years later, Jude records a strong warning about such men who come into the church as false teachers, arrogating to themselves the authority of God and His Word: “Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion”. The characteristics of false teachers within the church include pride, selfishness, jealousy, greed, lust for power, and disregard for the will of God. Just like Korah, today’s false teachers disregard God’s plan and are insubordinate to God’s appointed authorities. Their end will be the same as Korah’s. Thus the warning: “Woe to them!”

Now read the passage in question, Jude 3-23

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.

But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.

Remember the Protestant writer’s contention: “Jude records a strong warning about such men who come into the church as false teachers, arrogating to themselves the authority of God and His Word.” See the part about God’s word in verses 3-23? Me either. True, the text says that these men “reject authority” but every one of the examples of the authorities they reject are human or spiritual beings, nothing about the supposed “authority of the word of God.” While noting that modern-day false teachers “are insubordinate to God’s appointed authorities,” (which, in his Protestant context, would mean the pastor of whatever Protestant church the false teacher attends) the writer still somehow sees the Bible in a passage where no mention of it is made; he has been conditioned to understand it thus.

The Bible never teaches the concept of an authoritative Bible. People have authority. Angels have authority. To the Lord Jesus Christ all authority has been given in Heaven and on earth, and He has vested His authority, not in a Book, but in His apostles and by extension in their successors.

A book, even an inspired, inerrant Book which is the very word of God, cannot possess authority, nor can it “teach” us. The fiction of “the authority of the word of God” was an invention of the Reformers who, like all good magicians, urged their onlookers with the misdirection “Pay close attention!” whenever they needed to distract them lest they note the sleight of hand. Attention needed to be shifted away from what the Reformers were actually doing – refusing to obey the legitimate authority of Jesus’ Church – to the manmade doctrine of “the authority of the word of God.” In the Bible all authority lies with God Himself. And in the Bible, we see God delegating His authority to people in order that they might be His representatives. Their authority was very real; St. Paul, for example, exhorts his disciple St. Titus, bishop of Crete: Rebuke with all authority! Leaders like Titus and Timothy and their successors on down to the present day derive their authority, not from the word of God, as Protestants would have it, but from God Himself. Thus, when the leaders of the 16^th-century Church told Luther that he must cease and desist from teaching error, it wasn’t simply a matter of their opinion versus Luther’s – it was a matter of their authority as successors to the apostles versus his (nonexistent) authority. Period.

Assumption is an invaluable assistant in the Protestant magic act. Ask her to stand aside, and the audience becomes restless, sensing that the magician does indeed have something up his sleeve. The theme of apostolic authority, as well as the continuing authority of the successors to the apostles, runs clearly through the New Testament, there for all the world to see (Mt 18:17, Lk 10:16, Mt 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:42, Acts 15, Acts 16:4, Titus 2:1, Titus 2: 15, 1 Tim 1:3, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2, 4:2, 1 Jn 4:6) – until you enter the sideshow of the Reformation. At that point, certain truths are made to vanish, replaced by novel doctrines unheard of before the 16^th century, to the acclaim of an audience that has no idea it is being bamboozled. Beware when you see the authority of the Church that Jesus established being used as a prop in this sad act, because…

Now you see it – now you don’t!

 

On the memorial of St. Mary Magdalene

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credits: A magician at Taunton Carnival by Boliston

Ve Haf Vays of Maykingk You Go to Mass!

One unfortunate trend in Protestantism is the growth of a denomination which calls itself by various names: Bedside Baptist, Pillow Presbyterian, or the Church of the Holy Comforter. Put in old-fashioned terms, it means playing hooky from church on Sunday morning. Though it is peripherally related in nature to the 1960’s “turn on, tune in and drop out” mindset (minus the psychedelic drugs, of course), it claims to have a Biblical basis. Proponents point to Matthew 18:20, where the Savior assured His disciples that “where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in the midst of them.” This, they claim, is divine endorsement of their intention to stay home on Sundays. Members of this denominational persuasion just don’t get the point of “going to church.” Many are disillusioned with institutional churches, and have convinced themselves that “porch church” is just as good as the real thing. They can watch a televangelist or “participate” in an online church service, or they can just read their Bible and sing a few hymns with family members – all without guilt, because the Bible nowhere tells us how often we have to go to church.

You can see where this train of thought has led the Protestant world – fewer folks are sitting in the pews on Sundays. Those who have bought into the individualistic Just-Me-And-Jesus approach to Christianity and are now taking it to its logical conclusion are a hard sell as far as church attendance goes. “I don’t attend church because I am the church,” they’ll tell you. “I can worship God wherever I am; after all, He lives in my heart! I don’t need to go to a particular building to see Him!” Institutional churches, of course, aren’t too terribly pleased with this way of thinking, but far be it from them to insist that Christians HAVE TO be inside the building on Sunday mornings. While a real Christian will certainly WANT to come to church on Sunday, they will tell you, there’s no Biblical reason why he HAS TO. That, after all, is one of the many things wrong with the Catholic Church, which insists that attendance at Mass is an “obligation.” NOWHERE, Protestants will gladly explain to you, does the Bible say that church attendance is an obligation. The Catholic Church is sometimes portrayed as the religious equivalent of a totalitarian regime, forcing the terrorized population to knuckle under and show up on Sundays and Holy Days on pain of hellfire. My Moody Bible Institute friend told me of a relative of hers, a former Catholic, who was traumatized as a child by nuns who told her she would go to hell if she missed Mass. Such a crime, my friend tsk-tsked, since the Bible NOWHERE tells us that we HAVE TO go to church.

And she’s quite right – there is no 11th Commandment along the lines of “Thou shalt attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.” The closest the Bible comes to insisting on church attendance is Hebrews 10:23-25: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” – really underwhelming support for the Mass obligation. Of course, the book of Acts does tell us that the first Christians “devoted themselves to (a) the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, (b) to the breaking of bread and to prayer,” which Catholics believe was the Mass [(a) the Liturgy of the Word and (b) the Liturgy of the Eucharist]. Acts also says that Christians came together “on the first day of the week to break bread.” Put those two together and you certainly have a Biblical precedent for meeting on Sunday for Mass, but still no obligation. So did the tyrannical Catholic Church just make this stuff up about you having to get your tired hiney into a pew on Sunday morning?

I’ll answer that question with a question: Did your parents make that stuff up about your having to be home by 10 on a school night, and by 11 on the weekend – and no, you couldn’t eat all the ice cream you wanted before dinner? Well, if by that I mean did they make the decision to establish those rules? – yes, they did. But, after all, they’re your parents – you would expect your folks to make rules to keep you safe and healthy. That’s an aspect of parental rights – your mom and dad have the right to tell you what you have to do. And in that same fashion, the Catholic Church – our mother – has the parental right and obligation to make rules to keep us safe and healthy.

The Church is our mother? She is the bride of Christ, of course, and she nurtures the children of God. The idea of the Church as our mother goes back to the Old Testament. God is portrayed allegorically as a man who loves and marries a woman who betrays Him over and over (Jer 3, Hosea 2). Yet Isaiah 54 tells the story of how God will call back His spouse, His people “Zion” (Jerusalem), “never to rebuke you again.” This spouse in her fruitfulness will be no longer barren, but will bear her Husband many children – she will “spread out to the right and to the left,” and her “descendants will dispossess nations.” St. Paul proclaims the fulfillment of these verses in Galatians 4, calling “the Heavenly Jerusalem” our mother. The New Testament people of God make up the Heavenly Jerusalem. They are the Church, the bride of Christ, and this Church corporately brings forth new believers. Third-century bishop and martyr Cyprian of Carthage elaborated on this:

…one is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born, he may receive the Holy Spirit, even as it happened in the first man Adam. For first God formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who receives first have an existence. But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother?

As our parent, the Church has an obligation to “bring us up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and this she cannot do if we do not present ourselves to be taught by her. The Mass obligation, Biblically speaking, is a combination of two passages of Scripture, the above-mentioned Hebrews 10:23-25 (“not forsaking our own assembling together”) and another verse from Hebrews, in chapter 13, verse 17:

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.”

The Church, our mother, keeps watch over our souls, and for that reason has every right to insist on our presence at Mass. Some children, of course, do view parental authority as they would a totalitarian regime. A lot of Protestant objections to the parental aspect of the Church are juvenile as well, running the gamut from adolescent rage to predictable pubescent peevishness. “That old guy in Rome can’t tell me what to think!” “I worship God in my own way – no human being comes between me and Jesus!” “I can read the Bible for myself!” Rebellious children of rebellious parents, Protestants have ascribed authority to a Book, which allows them to appear to address the authority issue while merely deferring it – for no Book, not even the God-breathed Holy Scriptures, can explain itself to us. Authority, under the Protestant system, is left up to the individual, who interprets the Bible for himself. However, according to the Bible, Jesus gave His authority to His Church (Lk 10:16, Mt 18:17-18, Acts 16:4, 2 Thess 3:14, Titus 2:15, 1 Jn 4:6), we have been instructed to obey our leaders (Heb 13:17), and those leaders have every right to command us to be present at Mass.

“The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood” – so says the Church. If the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are all that the Church says they are, she would be committing child neglect if she did not require us to make ourselves available for their celebration. The Church is a good mother. She loves us, and she keeps watch over our souls.

On the memorial of Blessed Pope John XXIII

Deo omnis gloria!

The Great Mosaic

Many Evangelicals are fans of the great Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor, A.W. Tozer, author of The Pursuit of God and The Knowledge of the Holy. Despite a lack of formal theological training, Tozer gained a wide audience, and his influence has been felt throughout Evangelicalism. Importantly, Tozer was an honest man who made an honest attempt to preach what he believed to be the true meaning of the Scriptures. He himself expressed it best:

“I suppose more people would like me to declare that I preach the Bible and nothing but the Bible. I attempt to do that, but honesty compels me to say that the best I can do is to preach the Bible as I understand it.” A.W. Tozer, I Call It Heresy.

That statement demonstrates a lot of insight. Pastor Tozer knew that he was preaching HIS UNDERSTANDING of the Holy Scriptures, something that many Protestant preachers would not be so ready to admit. After all, no instruction booklet came with the Bible. No one can produce a divinely inspired pamphlet instructing us that Dispensationalism is the key to understanding Scripture, or that there is a “canon within the canon,” or that the book of Romans should be the basis for our understanding of Jesus’ teachings. Every Protestant preacher preaches HIS UNDERSTANDING of the Bible, and the influences on each pastor’s understanding will obviously vary. A minister trained at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary will have a very different theological take on the Scriptures than a self-ordained charismatic. A Kenyan pastor will have a different cultural perspective on the Scriptures than an Icelandic minister. A female pastor will bring a different social outlook to her study of the Bible than a male pastor. These differences are in some instances trifling, and in some instances monumental. The Bible, as we all know, is not a theological treatise penned by one human author. It is a collection of books, prose and poetry, all divinely inspired, but written at different times and in different places by some very different people. For that reason, the Protestant Bible is like a mosaic with sixty-six boxes full of mosaic tiles, and each pastor has to decide for himself how to assemble that mosaic in a way that best coincides with the intent of the Artist. The Catholic problem with this is that we believe that the Artist has committed to His bishops the directions for the correct assembly of the mosaic. We aren’t supposed to interpret it according to our own lights; the correct interpretation was committed by the Apostles to their successors. Every attempt to assemble the mosaic according to one’s own understanding isn’t simply creative license; it is what St. Peter warned against: private interpretation.

The second-century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons thought of the mosaic tiles as jewels, and explained the problem with “creative” assembly of the mosaic this way:

“Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skillful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king.”

Protestants don’t have all the pieces of the mosaic – the Reformers removed 7 whole books from the Old Testament. But even having all the pieces isn’t enough. You have to know how the Artist meant for those pieces to be arranged. As St. Irenaeus warns, it is possible to make other pictures out of the mosaic tiles. You can make a picture of a dog or a fox, and then claim that this was the beautiful image of the King which the Artist originally designed. And so, in the Protestant system the tiles of the beautiful teaching of justification by faith are rearranged, and justification by faith ALONE is presented to the unsuspecting believer, with the claim that this is the way the Artist intended for this doctrine to look all along. And of course it all seems to be on the up-and-up. Plenty of Bible verses go into this arrangement, so a lot of people feel that this must be what the Artist had in mind. But one begins to wonder when one realizes that the tiles of the doctrine of baptism, for example, are arranged very differently in a Baptist setting than they are in a Lutheran setting, which is different again from a Church of Christ setting, and so on. How to know, then, how these tiles of Scripture are to be PROPERLY arranged? Many different pictures are possible, a fox, a dog, a King….

Clearly, looking to the tiles themselves may give some direction, and this is a common Protestant theme: Let Scripture interpret Scripture. But you know you’ve got a problem when “letting Scripture interpret Scripture” leads to multiple interpretations of Scripture. They simply can’t all be right. There is one correct way to assemble those tiles, and one way only. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture can’t give us an authoritative answer.

Some claim to be able to correctly assemble the tiles through the direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. Again, this sounds great, until we run into the same problem: a multiplicity of views on the correct way to assemble the mosaic, even more views than with the “let Scripture interpret Scripture” proposition. St. Irenaeus had something to say on this multiplicity of views as well:

“Let us now look at the inconsistent opinions of those heretics (for there are some two or three of them), how they do not agree in treating the same points, but alike, in things and names, set forth opinions mutually discordant.”

A mark of heresy, Irenaeus is saying, is that heretics cannot agree among themselves, but have “opinions mutually discordant.” In other words, the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 cannot be found among the heretics. Heresy is by nature divisive.

If a reliance on the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not produce unanimity in the assembly of the tiles (and it does not), then perhaps recourse to someone who was taught directly by the Artist would work. Interestingly, the apostles, who WERE taught directly by the Artist, did not advocate attempting to recreate that direct teaching experience for ourselves, but instead insisted that their successors guard the teachings which the apostles passed down, both written and oral:

“Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.”

The contents of that “good deposit” are the directions to the assembly of the Great Mosaic. The proof corresponds with St. Irenaeus’ test for orthodoxy, unanimity of teaching.

“As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.”

Another early Christian writer, Tertullian, put it more pithily:

“Now is it likely that so many and such great churches should have gone astray into a unity of faith?”

Precisely. Heresy divides. Since a heretic makes things up as he goes along, it is hard to find two heretics who agree on doctrinal issues. Tertullian rightly points out how hard it is to believe that the Catholic dioceses of the second century supposedly deviated from the truth taught by the Apostles and strayed into unity. As he explained it:

“No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?”

St. Paul has the last word:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (II Thessalonians 2:15)

The beautiful image of the King has been so distorted over the past 500 years that many have no inkling how magnificent the mosaic actually is, when properly assembled. But if you refuse to follow the instructions (Holy Tradition) committed to the successors of the Apostles (the Catholic Bishops), you’ll never quite be able to see the Great Picture.

On the memorial of St. John Chrysostom

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credits:

Mosaico romano de las Cuatro Estaciones de la Casa de Baco en Complutum (Alcalá de Henares, Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, España).

Cave canem mosaic from Pompeii

Christ Pantocrator, detail of the Deesis mosaic

Obey Your Leaders

(Rachel opens the front door) Pastor! My goodness, I wasn’t expecting you! The house is a mess!

Pastor Cal: Oh, now, Rachel, you know I didn’t come to see the house. How are you?

Rachel: Come in, Pastor. I’m just fine…. (closes the door) Well, actually, I’m not just fine. God must have sent you here, because I’ve really been struggling lately. Have a seat. Can I get you something to drink?

Pastor Cal: No, thank you. Mindy is holding supper for me. I wanted to drop by and see how you and Rob are doing. Is everything all right?

Rachel: Well, I don’t know how you knew, Pastor, but no, everything’s not all right. I… Rob….” (Rachel throws her hands up).

Pastor Cal: Actually, Rachel, Rob asked me to talk to you.

Rachel: He did?

Pastor Cal (Clears his throat): Rob told me yesterday that you were having some problems with submission to his authority.

Rachel (temper flaring): Oh, he told you that, did he? Well, let me tell you what he’s ….

Pastor Cal (holding up his hands): That’s exactly what I don’t want to hear, Rachel. I don’t want to hear any excuses. I’ve been your pastor since your folks got saved in the 80’s. How many sermons have you heard me preach on the subject of wives submitting to their husbands?

Rachel (trying not to grimace): More than I can count.

Pastor Cal (nodding): And that’s because it’s such an important issue! It’s the issue of authority. Now, I don’t have to go over the Scripture references with you. “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.” “Be self-controlled and pure, be busy at home, be kind, and be subject to your husband, so that no one will malign the word of God,” “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The Bible is very clear on this issue, Rachel, and that’s why I don’t think we need to discuss this. As your pastor, I’m telling you that God says you must submit to Rob’s spiritual authority!”

Rachel (wringing her hands): But, even if he’s wrong? Even if he’s heading off in the wrong direction, and taking his family with him?

Pastor Cal: That’s why, Rachel, I made such a big issue of getting Rob saved before you married him, remember? You kept inviting him to church, and he finally got saved at the Morning Glory revival of 1995. I baptized him the following Sunday. You and I have watched him grow in love for the Lord. That’s the assurance, Rachel, that I wanted you to have before you said “I do” – the assurance that you could submit to Rob’s authority in good conscience, the assurance that he loves the Lord and will follow Him. Now that doesn’t mean that Rob can’t make mistakes…

Rachel: Boy, howdy!

Pastor Cal (sternly): But the Bible never says that you have to submit to your husband if and when you agree with him. It just doesn’t give you that option. Your husband is your spiritual head. To defy his leadership of your marriage is to defy the authority of Scripture, which tells you to submit to him as your legitimate spiritual authority! The husband is the head of the wife! Now, Rachel, are you telling me that Rob is trying to make you do something sinful?

Rachel (squirming): It’s not sinful, Pastor, but it’s certainly something you would really, really disapprove of! He wants us to….

Pastor Cal (holding up his hand to stop her): Again, Rachel, I just don’t want to hear it. I’ll tell you a story ….

(Rachel settles in for the long haul)

Pastor Cal: Back when Mindy and I were first married, I felt the Lord calling me to leave the church where I was a youth pastor and move across the country to Pike’s Peak. I had had some doctrinal differences with the pastor, and I was convinced that this was the Lord’s leading, so I discussed it with Mindy. She didn’t just think it was a bad idea – she thought it was NUTS! To leave our thriving little church in Maryland, where we both were in full-time ministry, and to move to this town where we knew no one, had no one waiting for us, had no job waiting for us, and to just trust that the Lord was going to take care of us! She was 100% against the idea, and she made that plain to me. Fortunately, though, Mindy understood that God has made the husband the head of the family, and He has told us very clearly in His Word that wives must submit to their husband’s leadership, not just when they happen to agree with it, but always. And do you know why that is, Rachel?

Rachel (dejectedly shakes her head).

Pastor Cal: That is because if you only submit when you think your husband’s right, you’re not really submitting at all – you’re just agreeing. God doesn’t expect husbands and wives to always agree, but He does expect wives to always obey their husbands. That’s why I told you to make very sure Rob was the man God wanted you to marry. That’s why I told you I wouldn’t marry you two till he got saved. That’s your assurance that from now on, you can submit in good conscience to Rob’s leadership, whether you think he’s right or not. Now….

(The front door opens, and Rob enters)

Rob (calling): Rachel, you shouldn’t leave the door unlocked like… oh, hello, Pastor Cal. How are you?

(The pastor rises to shake hands with Rob) Good to see you, Rob. I was just on my way out – I know you folks are getting ready to sit down to supper.

Rob: Why don’t you have supper with us, Pastor? We can set an extra place.

Pastor Cal: No, thank you, Mindy’s waiting for me. I wish you two a good evening….

Rob (hesitatantly): Umm, Pastor, I guess this is as good a time as any to let you know that you won’t be seeing as much of us as you have in the past.

Pastor Cal (looking from Rob to Rachel and then back): Are you moving away?

Rob: Well, no, we’re not leaving town, but we’ve decided… to begin attending another church.

Rachel (cutting in): HE’S decided that we’re going to attend another church.

Pastor Cal: Which church, if I may ask?

Rob: (embarassed but firm): Redeeming Grace.

Pastor Cal (obviously shocked): Rob, why?

Rob (reddening in the face): Pastor, I have been studying the Scriptures in the original Greek, and the Lord has enlightened my understanding….

Rachel (cutting in): But I’ve told Rob that he has to OBEY you, Pastor, and stop this foolishness!

(Pastor Cal stares quizically at Rachel)

Rachel (heatedly): “OBEY them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you!”

Rob: Rachel, stop this nonsense. Pastor, I have simply come to a different understanding on key verses of Scripture than what you preach at 1st Baptist. That’s why I can no longer in good conscience remain a member of your congregation. I just don’t agree with your interpretation of Scripture any more.

Rachel (almost shouting): But you have to obey your leaders, Rob! It says so in Hebrews 13: 17! Just as I have to obey you as my husband, you have to obey Pastor Cal as your spiritual leader!

Rob (angrily) Rachel, I am bound by my conscience! I just don’t agree with his teaching anymore!

Rachel (staring furiously at Rob): If you submit only when you agree, you’re not really submitting – you’re just agreeing! (Turns on Pastor Cal) Explain to me again, Pastor, why I have to obey him???

Good question, Rachel! Why do you have to submit to your husband if you don’t agree with his decisions?

Evangelicals tend to be pretty clear on the issue of wives submitting to their husbands. They understand that “the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph 5:23). Few of them would fall for the “But I think he’s wrong!” excuse for not submitting. Things get pretty vague in the Protestant camp, however, on the equally Biblical issue of submission to one’s spiritual leaders. “Bible-believing Christians” are of course familiar with Hebrews 13:17, which Rachel quoted from the KJV:

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Or, as it reads in the New American Standard Version:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Luther at Worms

Now, “Wives, submit to your husbands” and “Obey your leaders and submit to them” seem to be equally clear. Luther, however, became the prototype of the unsubmissive Protestant when he delivered his famous “My conscience is captive to the word of God.” Notice the shift – it is no longer “Obey your leaders,” but rather “Obey your own personal interpretation of the word of God.” Pretty big shift. Seriously, where does the Bible tell us to defy our leaders and set up our own church if we disagree with them? This tactic allows anyone anywhere at any time to REFUSE to obey his or her leaders, simply by playing the “But I Disagree” card.

Let’s compare the issue of Christians submitting to their leaders with the issue of wives submitting to their husbands. First of all, there are many Bible verses which address the subject of wifely submission, whereas there is only Hebrews 13:17 for the Christian to refer to on the issue of obeying one’s leaders – at least, that’s what Evangelicals will tell you. For, unfortunately, when Protestants strapped on their backpacks and strode off after Luther in a rather questionable direction, they jettisoned the concept of apostolic succession (they have, as a consequence, pretty lightly equipped backpacks). When the author of Hebrews wrote that Christians must obey their leaders, by “leaders” he meant the apostles and their successors, men like Sts. Timothy and Titus. Look at the advice St. Paul gives these bishops (and yes, the KJV says they were BISHOPS): “Command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer” “Command and teach these things” “Correct, rebuke and encourage” “Let no one disregard you” “Encourage and rebuke with all authority” “Rebuke them sharply so that they will be sound in the faith.” The repeated use of the words “command” and “rebuke” ought to tell us something. In fact, these bishops were instructed by Paul to “rebuke sharply” and “with all authority!” They definitely held a different position than that of the modern-day Protestant pastor. To the Evangelical believer, your pastor is your employee. Now, few people would put it in those words, but yes, if you are an Evangelical, the pastor is in your employ. Should you find sufficient fault with him, you dismiss him as you would a lawn care professional who refused to trim your grass to the length you specified.

Take a look at the Baptist procedure known as “calling a pastor.”

–    A Baptist congregation faces an empty pulpit, so a search committee is formed and candidates are interviewed. Based on what criteria will the committee make its recommendations? Obviously, based on the fact that the chosen candidate’s beliefs mirror those of the committee members. Let’s get this straight: a committee of lay people, none of whom most likely possess any kind of formal theological training, chooses a new pastor based on his agreement with their interpretation of the Word of God. And for some reason this doesn’t strike anyone as perilously close to “accumulating for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires”….

–    When the committee has narrowed the field down to several acceptable candidates, said candidates will ascend the pulpit over the course of the next few weeks to preach. Once the congregation feels sufficiently exposed to all the candidates, the voting commences. That’s right – voting. The congregation (once again, a group of lay people , none of whom most likely possess any kind of formal theological training) votes on the candidates. The congregation then has a new leader, one to whom they plan to submit themselves… sort of. Should this new pastor, one Sunday, divulge a hitherto undisclosed interest in, say, baptizing infants, Monday morning will find him filling out forms at the unemployment office. Obey your leaders? Yeah, right – since when does a boss obey his employee?

Of course, not all Protestant churches follow this model. Some, like United Methodists, have bishops who assign pastors to churches. This makes the leadership claim a little more credible. But what to do as a Methodist if your newly assigned minister is preaching against homosexual behavior? You, after all, just know that Jesus was all about love and acceptance, and never expressed an opinion on the subject of same-sex marriage – “Judge not!” and all that. Not to worry, disobedience to a mainline Protestant pastor is not unthinkable – you can strike a downright noble pose as you exit 1st Street United Methodist Church and enter 2nd Street United Methodist Church where the pastor sees things your way. After all, you are “captive to your interpretation of the word of God.” No mean old bigoted man in clerical garb can tell you what to believe….

The truth is, by jettisoning apostolic succession, Protestants jettisoned the very reason why the Bible insists that we must obey our leaders. We must obey them because they are the successors to the apostles to whom Jesus Christ spoke these words:

He who hears you, hears Me.

You see, when the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord,” it is making a similar argument. Christ has so ordered His body that there are people to whom we owe obedience, and by submitting to them we are in fact submitting to Him. Wives who refuse to submit to their DH are actually refusing to submit to the Lord who commanded this. Christians who refuse to submit to their leaders are actually refusing to submit to the Lord who commanded this. And submission cannot mean “agreement.” In the words of Bryan Cross’ immortal couplet –

If I submit only when I agree,

The person I am submitting to

Is me.

And so Pastor Cal’s point about being careful who you marry is very apropos. In a matrimonial sense, you can spare yourself a world of grief by choosing prayerfully and wisely. Certainly, most of us think that the choice of a spouse is one of life’s most important decisions. Yet the spiritual choice we are called upon to make involves stakes which are infinitely higher. Earthly marital unhappiness is truly nothing next to eternal misery without God. Choosing your spiritual leaders, to whom you plan to submit yourself because of your submission to Christ who commanded this, is literally a decision of eternal importance. Yet for most Protestants, this is given as much thought as the question of which grocery store to shop at, and for the same reason.

On the memorial of St. Giles

Deo omnis gloria!