they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures
only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which
were inspired.
No, mankind can accept the Scriptures on the basis that they
are inspired by God, But this does not eliminate the facts that the authors of these
sacred books were Roman Catholic and that only the Catholic Church has the ability to
determine which books were sacred and which were not.
Determine: to fix conclusively or authoritatively -
di-'t&r-m&n, (© 2000 by
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)
Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave
us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen
people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage
then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First,
indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also
Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).
The Catholic Church CAN claim that it gave us the Old Testament
Scriptures. The Jews soon after the advent of Christianity came to reject the Greek
Septuagint version. This was the version that even David J. Riggs says "was the
version Christ and His apostles used". The Jews rejected this version of scripture on
the basis that the Catholic Church accepted it. in order to justify this break with Jewish
tradition and the true cannot of the old testament the Jews falsely accused the Christians
of altering the Greek texts.
" The appearance of the Septuagint was greeted enthusiasm
everywhere; but with the rise of the Christian sect, and its adoption of the version of
the Bible, the Jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying
the Greek texts"(Jewish encyclopedia 1955 p. 593)
Around the year 100 A.D. At the council of
Jamnia (or Javneh) we see the Jews openly denounce the septuagint and its Canon. it was
only the Catholic Church who preserved, revered, and saved the septuagint which
post-Christ throughout. Indeed the Protestants are very indebted to the Catholic Church
for preserving the Canon and old Testament version Christ and His apostles used.
" but with the rise of the Christian
sect, and its adoption of the version of the Bible, the Jews began to denounce it
vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek texts this resentment
eventually led Rabbi Zakkai and the council of Jamnia (or Javneh) to openly reject the
Septuagint whitch contained the seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit,
Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel)"(Jewish
encyclopedia 1955 p. 593)
The Old Testament books were gathered into one
volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint
Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year
227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used.
With this statement we do agree, This was the
version Christ and His apostles used.
"
the quotations from the Old Testament found in the new, are
mainly taken from the Septuagint to; and even when Citation is
indirect the inference of the Septuagint version is clearly seen"(1955 Jewish
encyclopedia volume 3, p. 186)
Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do
today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those
who gathered them and declared them to be inspired.
Neither, did Christ tell the people to write
the four Gospels and the Epistles. Christ did not tell the people to assemble these
sacred writings into one place. Christ did not tell the people to have these writings
originally on separate scrolls, bound together in book (or Codex) form. Christ did not tell the people to translate the sacred
writings from their original languages Greek and Hebrew. Christ did not tell the people to
divide these sacred scriptures into chapter and verse. Christ did not tell the people that
these new translations should be printed instead of handwritten. Christ did not tell the
people that these new printed translations in book form should be distributed from the
common use of the people.Christ did not tell the people that should create concordances of these new
translations to
make studing them easier. does that make these innovations wrong? Of course not, you
accept all these changes the Catholic
Church Instituted regardless of the fact that Christ did not command them.
It is really a matter of common sense no intelligent
person would logically except the authority of any document, if they did not except
the authority of the people who created and assembled the document. regardless of whether
or not to you except the authority of the Catholic Church it does not change the fact that
it was the authority of the Catholic Church which ended the debate as to which writings
were sacred and which were not.
He urged the people of His day to follow the Old
Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has
sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that
God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal)
which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts
concerning the gathering of the inspired books.
Unfortunately for Mr. Riggs history disagrees with him. for the
first 400 years God-fearing men and women tried unsuccessfully (as
we shall see further down) to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were
of God and which were not. It was not until about the year 390 when the church which
Christ founded took it upon itself to formulate a Canon that this was successfully
achieved.
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it
nowhere mention the Catholic Church?
In the first place, the fact that the words "Catholic
Church" are not to be found in the Bible is not proof of anything. If this were true,
then we must discard 1) the Trinity (for the term is not to be found in the Bible), 2) the
Bible (for the term is not to be found in the Bible), 3) non-denominational churches (for
the terms are not to be found in the Bible), and so on, and so forth.
The point is, the term, "The Catholic Church" appears in
extant Christian literature for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch
who was ordained a Bishop of the Catholic Church by St. John the Apostle. In a letter
written to the People of Smyrna in the year 110 A.D. he says, "Wheresoever the bishop
is found there likewise let the people be found, even as where Jesus Christ may be, there
is the Catholic Church".
It is a man-made name for the Church of Christ, the Church founded
by Christ, just as the term "Christian" is a man-made name for the Church
founded by Christ (Cf. Acts 11:26). This is not proof of anything, nor is it evidence
against anything, if it were, then the very Christian Church would be disproven because
the name "Christian" is a man-made title.
Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal,
an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order?
All the titles you mention above are man-made titles given to a
station (in the cases of popes, cardinals, archbishops, and parish priests) or a member of
a religious order (in the cases of nuns, brothers, and so forth), period. We readily admit
that the above-mentioned names are not to be found in the Sacred Scriptures. They were
given to the stations in question at a later date. Though I must state that this is very
similar to stating that the title "Internal Revenue Service" is not in the
constitution, therefore not a part of our government and we don’t have to pay them a
darn penny. Of course, I’d like to see you try to explain that to them. :)
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is
auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of
relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of
it?
1. In the case of auricular confession, it is simply a practical
thing. In order for the Priest to decide whose sins to forgive and whose sins to retain he
must know what the sins in question are. Hence the reason why the penitent must tell the
Priest his sins verbally (not written down for fear that the paper might fall into the
wrong hands - this is one of the primary reasons why auricular confession is used).
Furthermore, in the Scriptures it tells us to confess our sins one
to another (James 5:16), and how are we to do that if not verbally? As written above, if
the sins are copied on paper (or sent through any electronic means), there is danger that
they might fall into the wrong hands.
2. In the case of indulgences, first it would be best if we defined
the term. As it is, many protestants and non-denominationalists have a wrong idea of what
indulgences are.
In the Roman Catholic Church (indulgences are) a remission of the
punishment still due after the sin has been forgiven. (The World Book Dictionary, 1967)
It does not forgive the sin, but forgives the temporal punishment
(temporary punishment in purgatory) for the sin in question. Period. It does nothing more.
The fact that the Catholic Church has the authority and the power to
grant indulgences is sufficiently shown in Matthew 16:19, and other verses dealing with
the authority of the Church and the hierarchy.
That indulgences are not mentioned in the Bible is hardly
surprising, considering the fact that the term "indulgence" is yet another
man-made title.
3. In the case of praying to the saints, this is an issue that has
been dealt with time and time again by Catholic apologists, and I feel no real need to go
into it. But so my opponent will not accuse me of avoiding the issue, permit me to provide
a citation from Father Rumble and Father Carty’s famed "Radio Replies" on
the issue of praying to the saints and Sacred Scripture:
When the Catholic Church teaches us that prayer to the Saints is
right and useful, it is God teaching us that truth through His Church. But the doctrine is
clearly enough indicated in Scripture also. The Jews asked Moses to go to speak to God on
their behalf. God Himself said to Eliphaz, the Themanite, "My wrath is kindled
against thee... but my servant Job shall prayer for you. His face I will accept, that
folly be not imputed to you." Job 42:8. Earlier in that same book we read, "Call
now if there will be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the Saints." 5:1.
His enemies meant that Job was too wicked to be heard, but they knew that it was lawful to
invoke the Saints. Long after the death of Jeremiah, Onias said of that prophet,
"This is the lover of his brethren and of the people of Israel. This is he that
prayeth much for people and for all the holy city; Jeremiah, the prophet of God." 2
Mach. 15:14. St. James says that the "prayer of a just man availeth much." If
his prayer is valuable, it is worth while to ask his prayers. If you say, "Yes. That
is all right whilst a man is still in this life and on earth," I ask whether you
think he has less power when in heaven with God? In Rev. 8:4, St. John says that he saw
"the prayers of the Saints ascending up before God from the hand of an angel."
If I can ask my own mother to pray for me whilst she is still in this life, surely I can
do so when she is with God! She does not know less when she rejoices in the Vision of God;
she has not less interest in me; and she is not less charitable disposed towards me then.
We Catholics believe in the Communion of Saints, and are in communion with them. But for
you the doctrine of the Apostle’s Creed, "I believe in the Communion of
Saints," must be a meaningless formula. Christ is not particularly honored by our
ignoring those who loved and served Him best, and whom He loves so much.
4. This statement is a blatant misrepresentation of Catholicism. As
it is, Catholics do not adore the Blessed Virgin. We worship her, certainly. But we
do not adore her. As the dictionary defines the term:
"To pay divine honor to; to worship: I adore God" (The
Random House College Dictionary, p. 19)
We worship the Blessed Mother of the Lord, certainly. As St. John
Damascene said:
"We worship and adore the Creator and Maker alone , as
God who by His nature is to be worshipped. We worship also the Holy Mother of God, not
as God, but as God's Mother according to the flesh [Hyperdulia]. Moreover we worship
also the saints, as elect friends of God, and as having gotten ready audience with
Him." [St. John Damascene; "Apologetic Sermons" ca. 725 A. D.]
We do not worship Mary as God, as St. John Damascene pointed out.
Hence, we do not adore her. To provide a lengthy citation from David Goldstein, famous
Catholic Apologist, on this matter:
If by "worship" you mean, as you no doubt do, that
Catholics consider Mary to be a Goddess; that they imagine her to have powers of a Divine
nature, and that therefore Catholics bestow upon her honors such as heathens bestow upon
their female divinities, the answer is emphatically, NO. That would be a violation of the
law of God. If, by "worship" you mean honor, respect, reverence, such as is
given when we address His Worship, the magistrate or others of rank and station, the
answer is emphatically, YES, though venerate is a less misleading term.
We worship other heroes; we bestow worshipful honors upon the
mothers of presidents and kings, then what reasonable objection can be raised against
worshipfully honoring the mother of the King of Kings? We venerate Mary as a heroine who
gave us a Son whom we love more than we love all the sons of men. To her Son we give
Divine worship, because He is our Lord and our God.
Catholics cannot help but question the consistency of Protestants
giving praise of the highest to Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Deborah, Ruth, and others, while
virtually ignoring Mary. Surely she towers far above them. Is it because Catholics are
profuse in their love and praise of Mary? It seems so. Once in a while some Protestant
minister realizes the enormity of it, and frankly says so. Rev. A. E. Whitman of London, a
leading minister in the Methodist Church in England, said in the "Methodist
Recorder" (Jan. 1, 1935) –
"I am ashamed to confess that only once in my whole ministry
have I preached a sermon in praise of Mary, whose supernal office in mothering Jesus we,
in our devout imagination, dwell upon in the first days of the New Year."
"In Free Church thought and affection she has never been given
her due place. Alexander Whyte, the Free Church minister of Scotland, said ‘We must
give Mary her promised due. We must not allow ourselves to entertain a grudge against the
Mother of Our Lord because some enthusiasts for her have given her more than her due.’
That is a necessary word. We have never given her the place she is given in the New
Testament, though we profess to be New Testament Christians. She is there called the most
blessed of women."
"For she did feed the lips that spake as man never spake, with
her own milk. She did shadow with her divinely maiden self the Light of Life when it was
frailer than smoking flax. She held with the girdle of her mothering this Holy Child in
his untried ways, Him who was to bind the world with golden chains of love about the feet
of God. She caught Him in His tiny falls -Him who was to catch the world in its plunge
into night and roll back into paths of light."
Mr. Whitman then explains that in the position of Our Lady arises
from her vocation as described in the New Testament, a vocation which "gives her a
supreme place among the daughters of Eve." Proceeding to sketch the history of
devotion to Her, he shows certain misconceptions entertained outside the Catholic Church.
All the same, he says,
"We may fully recognize, as do all intelligent historians, the
cultural values in an through the dark ages of those courtesies and chivalries of the
court of Heaven, where she reigned as Queen, casting the mantle of her comely sweetness
and purity over a barbaric world as the blue sky canopies the earth. One may rejoice, if
there be any poetry and humanity in us, at the ebullition of love and devotion through the
twelfth century, that built eighty Cathedrals and five hundred churches of cathedral size
to the honor of Mary; and we may read with simple delight the golden legendry that
gathered about her name."
Ruskin, the English author and art critic, noting the holy and
cultural effect of the "worship" of Mary (using the term "worship" in
the secondary sense) said:
"I am persuaded that the worship of the Madonna has been one of
the noblest and most vital graces of Catholicism, and has never been otherwise than
productive of true holiness and of life and purity of character... There has probably not
been an innocent cottage house throughout the length and breadth of Europe in which the
imagined presence of the Madonna has not give sanctity to the humblest duties and comfort
to the sorest trials of the lives of women" ("Fors Clavegera," 41st
letter).
Though the devotion Catholics extend to Mary be called
"worship" in the wrong sense of the term, they will continue, with the Angels,
to call her "blessed among women." No honor is too great for this heroine of
heroines. She is all that is humble, modest and pure among women, and above all, she is
the mother of Jesus, who is our Lord and our God. (What Say You?)
5. As far as veneration of relics and images goes, we shall deal
with images in a few moments. With regards to relics, I would like to point out that the
Early Christians venerated relics quite frequently. But aside from that, veneration of
relics is to be found in the Bible, as in the case of the bones of Joseph being
transported with processions and great honor from Egypt to the Holy Land by the Hebrews.
If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the
passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of
good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his
children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own
household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The
Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be
married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible
as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort
to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
This is simply false. The Bible no where states that all
Bishops "must be married," it states that they can be married "but
once." It is not a statement to the effect that every Bishop must have a wife,
for even St. Paul himself did not have a wife, but that no one is to become a Bishop who
has been married more than once.
This is why footnotes are to be found in the majority of Catholic
Bibles, in order to put an end to such misinterpretations and twisting of Scripture, as we
have seen above in the case of 1 Timothy. It is a major aid to Catholics in the
understanding of the Scriptures, and in the answering arguments. This is also the same
reason why many protestant bibles have dictionaries and concordances in the back. Are they
also trying to "keep their subject from believing what is in the text"? And
there I was thinking they believed in sola scriptura as well. :)
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to
emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
To cite the verse in question:
Matthew 23:5 [DR] And all their works they do for to be seen of men.
For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes.
Matthew 23:6 [DR] And they love the first places at feasts, and the
first chairs in the synagogues,
These verses do not condemn clerical dress, they are condemning the
abuses of clerical dress among the Jewish leaders. It does not condemn clerical dress
period. As the last verse states "And they love the first places at feasts, and the
first chairs in the synagogues." They used clerical dress as a way to gain access to
the higher levels of society.
This misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture is yet another good
argument for footnotes in the Bible, Bible Dictionaries, Concordances, and a secular
dictionary. Not to mention another good argument against the ignorant attempting to
interpret Scripture for themselves.
 |
Furthermore, the early Christians themselves had
clerical garb for their Clergymen, as the picture to the left of Pope St. Sixtus II
(reigned 257-258), found in the Roman catacombs, the crypt of St. Cornelius, proves. |
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of
Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
No Catholic adores the Blessed Mother of the Lord. If they did, then
they would be sinning. Holy Mother Church has never advocated the adoration of a creature
of God, and giving the aforementioned creature the sort of worship (adoration) that is God’s
alone. Do we worship her? Certainly. But, as St. John Damascene pointed out, we do not
worship her as God. To claim that we adore the Blessed Virgin is to misrepresent Catholics
and the Catholic religion.
The verses cited by my opponent are as follows:
Luke 11:27 [DR] And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a
certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that
bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck.
Luke 11:28 [DR] But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear
the word of God, and keep it.
These verses are frequently twisted and misinterpreted by
non-Catholics in a desperate attempt to attack Holy Mother Church, and Her veneration of
the Blessed Mother of the Lord. Unfortunately for them, these verses do not support their
case at all.
These verses do not deny the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is
Blessed, or that all generations will call her blessed. The fact that the Blessed Virgin
is Blessed is testified to numerous times in Sacred Scripture (Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42), and
the fact that we are to call her Blessed is testified to as well by the Blessed Virgin
herself in Luke 1:48:
Because he hath regarded the humility of this handmaid; for behold
from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
All generations shall call her blessed, except those which are not
of the Lord. For, indeed, protestants do not call her blessed - yet another Scripture
verse that they ignore, out of many. Our Savior does not here wish to deny what the woman
had said, but rather to confirm it; indeed how could He deny, as Calvin impiously
maintained, that his mother was blessed? By these words, he only wishes to tell His
listeners what great advantages they might obtain by attending to His Words. For the
blessed Virgin, as S. Augustine says, was more happy in having our Savior in her heart and
affections, than in having conceived Him in her womb.
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests?
(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
All Christians are Priests, and we certainly
acknowledge this. But all Christians are not Priests in their own right, as are the
ordained Priests, but are Priests through their association in the Mystical Body of
Christ, the High Priest.
4. Why does it condemn the observance of
special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
To cite the verses referred to by my opponent:
Galatians 4:9 [DR] But now, after that you have known God, or rather
are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to
serve again?
Galatians 4:10 [DR] You observe days, and months, and times, and
years.
Galatians 4:11 [DR] I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured
in vain among you.
These verses do not forbid the observance of special days, otherwise
we would not be permitted to observe the Sabbath, as we are commanded to do by God. These
verses are referring to the pagan holidays which were kept by the people in question, and
were held by them, prior to their becoming Christians. Hence the reason why the Apostle
says "But now, after you have known God, (i.e. after you have converted to
Christianity) or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy
elements, which you desire to serve again?" It says very explicitly which days, and
months, and times, and years, are forbidden..... the ones which they observed prior to
their conversion.
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are
saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
Certainly, the verse is entirely correct, what is incorrect is your
interpretation. To cite the verse:
I Corinthians 1:2 [DR] To the church of God that is at Corinth, to
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in every place of theirs and ours.
The verse is entirely correct, and certainly completely Catholic
(besides the fact that it was written by a Catholic). You will note that it states
explicitly that the Church in Corinth, are called to be saints not already
are saints.
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of
images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
If you were to abide by Exodus 20:4, which you stress, without
regard to Exodus 20:5, then the making of a "likeness of anything that is in heaven
above or in the earth beneath or of those things that are in the waters under the
earth" would be a sin. Then would the photographing of the sun, moon, and stars
"in the heavens above"; then would photographs of man, animals, reptiles on the
earth, or fish in the waters, be a violation of God's law. To understand God's command,
one must include the verse that follows Exodus 20:5, which you exclude, that plainly
declares these things are not to be made to adore or serve, actions that the Catholic
Church prohibits.
Your interpretation of the Commandments inferentially charges God
with violating His own law. In Exodus 25:18-20 we find God ordering the Jews to
make images of angels for the sides of the oracle, the medium through which communications
were received from God in the Holy of Holies.
In the first place, the Catholic Church does not "set up
images, statues, and pictures" in her churches" as idols" to be worshipped,
as did the pagans, who were rightly condemned for so doing. Such things are not
"idols," save when divine worship is bestowed upon them, which the Catholic
Church forbids, They are venerated by Catholics, not worshipped, as you no doubt venerate
pictures and trinkets of persons who are near and dear to you.
To venerate is not to worship, as James M. O'Neill says in his gold
mine of information "Catholicism and American Freedom,"---I have just
read, which was written in refutation of charges, including your charge, made by Paul
Blanshard, whose anti-Catholic assumption you echo. To "venerate," says
Webster's Dictionary, is to regard with reverential respect, or with admiration and
deference, to revere."
If you were so fortunate as to elevate yourself above the
anti-Catholic animus which darkens your vision, you would realize how absurd it is to make
the thousandth-time refuted charge that Catholics violate the Commandments, by making and
venerating images of Christ, His Blessed Mother, and the other saints, considering that
they do not use them as idols, as did the pagans. St. Jerome said over eleven centuries
before Protestants destroyed the relics, crucifixes, images of saints in the Catholic
Churches they confiscated, under the devilish inspiration of Luther, Henry VIII, and
"Good Queen Bess":-"We do not worship, we do not adore, we do not bow down
to creatures rather than the Creator, but we venerate the relics of martyrs, in order to
adore Him whose martyrs they are" (Ad Reprium).
Aside from the testimony of St. Jerome, and others of foremost
standing during the Christian centuries before the Bible, privately interpreted, was
assumed to be of superior authority to the Church that gave the Christian Bible to the
world, frescoes and images were painted and carved in the catacombs, which evidence the
fact that veneration of such things was in accord with God's will.
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion
instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
Well, unfortunately the verse David cited doesn’t refer
to immersion instead of pouring. As a matter of fact... it doesn't refer to either
immersion or pouring. To cite the verse:
Colossians 2:12 [DR] Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you
are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the
dead.
Furthermore, as the Didache (attributed to the Apostles themselves)
says concerning "pouring" and "immersion":
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no
living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm.
If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be
baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to
fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious
leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
David’s rigid interpretation would forbid the calling of an
earthly parent father. Yet God Himself, in the commandments, terms one of the parents
father, and tells us to honor him as such. The Scripture verse means simply, "Call no
one your father as if you had no other father with rights over you." That is, we must
realize that all paternity is of God, and that we owe our being, and all that we have,
including our earthly father, to Him. Nor can any claims of an earthly father avail
against our duties to God, our heavenly Father. Meantime, Catholics do not call a Priest
"Father" in the same sense as that in which they call God their Father. A
Priest, by God’s Providence and by the authority of Christ, is a father in the
spiritual sense, just as a natural parent is a father in an earthly sense. By
administering Baptism he gives spiritual life to a soul; he nourishes that life by
conferring the Sacraments; he warns, teaches, helps with his advice, corrects, and does
all in the spiritual life that an earthly father does in the temporal order. So much so
that St. Paul attributes a true paternity to himself, saying, "I admonish you as my
dearest children... for in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you." I.
Corinthians,, 4:14.
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only
foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
We readily admit that Christ is the foundation of the Church, and
not St. Peter. And yet, Christ Himself, the Foundation of the Church, chose to build His
Church upon St. Peter, the Rock, in
Matthew 16:18.
10. Why does it teach that there is one
mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
To cite the verse cited by my opponent (and the one immediately
following it):
I Timothy 2:5 [DR] For there is one God, and one mediator of God and
men, the man Christ Jesus:
I Timothy 2:6 [DR] Who gave himself a redemption for all, a
testimony in due times.
One mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who gave
himself a redemption for all. Take all these words together, and we may easily
understand in what sense the apostle calls our Savior Christ, the one or only mediator;
that is, he is the only mediator, who at the same time is our Redeemer; the only mediator
who could mediate between God, the person offended by sin, and men, the offenders; the
only mediator who reconciled God to mankind by his incarnation and death, by the infinite
price of his blood, by his own merits, independently of the merits of any other. All
Catholics allow that the dignity and office of mediator in this sense belongs only to our
Redeemer Jesus Christ, or to the Son of God, made man to save us. The sense then of this
place, is that as there is but one God, who created all, so there is but one mediator, who
redeemed all. But yet the name of the mediator is not so appropriated to Christ, but that
in an inferior and different sense the angels and saints in heaven, and even men on earth,
who pray to God for the salvation of others, may be called mediators, intercessors, o
advocates; and we may apply ourselves to them to pray, intercede, and mediate for us,
without any injury to Christ, since we acknowledge that all their intercession and
mediation is always grounded upon the merits of Christ, our Redeemer.
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a
married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
I ask the reader to scroll up to the point where I respond to this
misinterpretation/twisting of the verses in question.
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter?
(Luke 22:24-27).
To begin with, the primacy of St. Peter was to be seen both in the
Sacred Scriptures, as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers. Permit me to begin by
proving the fact that St. Peter’s primacy is to be easily seen in the Sacred
Scriptures. To cite the Scriptures:
Matthew 16:18 [DR] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:19 [DR] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
We ask the reader to note that in the above verses, Christ
explicitly states that He will build His Church upon St. Peter. Christ also stated that
the keys to the kingdom of Heaven were given to St. Peter, and whatsoever St. Peter shall
bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. And whatsoever St. Peter shall loose upon
earth, it shall be loosed "also in Heaven." Here Christ is placing St. Peter at
the head of His Church, giving him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and giving St. Peter
absolutely authority and power. Note how verse 19 states "whatsoever thou shalt bind
upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven," as well as "whatsoever thou shalt
loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven." To continue to cite Sacred
Scripture:
John 21:15 [DR] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon
Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou
knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
John 21:16 [DR] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest
thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed
my lambs.
John 21:17 [DR] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John,
lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou
me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He
said to him: Feed my sheep.
I shall let the Early Christians defend my position on these verses,
and explain them:
(St. John Chrysostom - 392 AD) "By these words: 'Feed My lambs
and My sheep' (John 21), Christ commited His flock not only to Peter, but to his
successors as well." (On the Gospel of John in Migne)
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, '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 shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be
loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and
to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like
power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by
his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were
also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made
clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are
shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded
accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still
holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built,
can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The
Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has
spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles,
saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I
acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that
he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. And, though special
honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been
made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the
firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the
voice of the Truth, 'To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven' [Matt. 16:19].
And again it is said to him, 'And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren' [Luke
22:32]. And once more, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep' [John
21:17]" (Pope Gregory I, Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
Of course, this is but a short listing of Church Fathers who wrote
in support of the Primacy of St. Peter. I could easily provide ten times as many citations
without breaking a sweat.
To cite the verses referred to by David Riggs:
Luke 22:24 [DR] And there was also a strife amongst them, which of
them should seem to be the greater.
Luke 22:25 [DR] And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord
it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent.
Luke 22:26 [DR] But you not so: but he that is the greater among
you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.
Luke 22:27 [DR] For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or
he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he
that serveth:
These verses do not deal with the primacy of St. Peter at all. If
they were a denial of his primacy, then are we also supposed to deny the authority of
Christ? Who stated quite expressly
"But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth"? Of
course not. To say so would be simply preposterous. Not to mention the fact that the Pope
openly admits the fact that he is the servant of the servants of God in the beginning of
every Papal Bull.
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory?
(Luke 16:26).
This verse does not even mention the idea of purgatory, but
discusses the difference between Hell and the Limbo of the Fathers, as the preceding verse
27 points out.
Luke 16:25 [DR] And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou
didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he
is comforted; and thou art tormented.
14. Why is it completely silent about infant
baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary,
the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
In the first place, silence on an issue is not a negation of it. It
does not prove that the above-mentioned "things" are wrong, or that they are
impious, or that they shouldn’t be done. It is not proof of anything, other than that
they aren’t in the Scriptures - which does not claim to contain all teachings, or all
things. It really doesn’t matter whether the Scriptures contain any mention of the
things mention above.
Catholics hold to Sacred Scripture as a Rule of Faith, though not
THE Rule of Faith. As David Goldstein pointed out:
Catholics have the Bible as their rule of faith, though not the
"sole rule of faith." First things come first in the religion of Catholics.
Therefore Catholics are guided in their religious judgments, first by their Church; and
secondly by the Bible as interpreted by the Catholic Church, to which the world is
indebted for the existence of the Christian Bible.
It would not matter at all if those things which David Riggs
mentioned above were not in the Bible at all. It would not disprove them, it would not
prove Catholicism wrong on those issues, it really would not matter at all.
If it is true that anything that is not to be found in the
Scriptures is false and not true, then let David Riggs show where in the Scriptures such a
principle is to be found. As David Goldstein also said:
If the Bible is the "sole rule of faith," pray name the
text in the New Testament that warrants such a false conclusion that the renegade priest,
Martin Luther, originated! If you used your "brains" instead of your
anti-Catholic emotions, you would realize the absurdity of your assumption. Christ
promised to be with His Church, and not the Bible, until the end of the world. The
officialdom of that Church, whose "brains" you repudiate, is made up of priests
whom St. Paul calls Ambassadors of Christ (II Cor. 5:20). Hence repudiation of them is
repudiation of the Personage they represent.
Obviously the Apostles did not depend upon a Christian Bible for
religious and moral guidance as it wasn’t even in existence at that time. In fact,
there is only one of the Twelve who may possibly have seen the writings that form the New
Testament, and that was St. John - as the other Eleven had gone to their eternal reward
prior to St. John’s writing of his Gospel.
The Catholic Church was in existence before a line in the New
Testament was written. The Apostles preached Christ and Him crucified; St. Peter had
converted over 3,000 Jews; the Council of Jerusalem had taken place, and the Jewish law
was abrogated... and all before a single line of the New Testament was written. Before St.
John wrote his Gospel and Apocalypse, the Catholic Church had celebrated her golden
jubilee, and St. Paul could rightly say that the Faith of Christ had been "proclaimed
all over the (then-known) world" (Rom. 1:8)
If the Bible was to be our sole rule of faith, and if it is true
that anything that is not to be found within it is false and wrong, then let David Riggs
explain how it is that the Christian Church was in existence before the New Testament was
written, was preaching the Truths of the Christian Religion and baptizing converts into
the Faith by the thousands, without having seen or made use of a line of the New
Testament. Surely it was not their sole rule of faith! How could it have been? They didn’t
have the New Testament! They only had the Old Testament, and many of the teachings they
were teaching were new and are not to be found in the Old Testament! The Trinity, for
example, was a new teaching. The Redemption of Christ was new. There are many doctrines in
Christianity that were taught at that time that were new and novel, and were not based
upon the Scriptures of the time at all, nor could they have been based upon the New
Testament since it wasn’t even in existence at the time. Are we to conclude that the
teachings of the Apostles were false because they weren’t to be found in the Old
Testament?
Insofar as instrumental music during worship and the rosary are
concerned, these are really non-issues. These are side-issues which are thrown up as a
form of "smoke screen" in a desperate attempt by David Riggs to make it look
like his article has some information in it. The point of the matter is, even if these
were false, that would not disprove the Catholic Church or prove that it wasn’t the
Church founded by Christ. We readily admit that these were things that were introduced at
a later date. There is no problem with this. As is the case with indulgences.
As far as confessions to priests are concerned, this is a point that
is very well grounded upon both Sacred Scripture and Tradition. In the Holy Gospel of
Saint John chapter 20 verses 22-23 Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostles.
In order for the Apostles to know which sins to retain and which sins to forgive, they
must know what the sins are first. The telling of these sins to the Apostles, or to a
lawful minister of the Church founded by Christ, is what is called confession. Granted the
title "confession" may not be found in the New Testament referring to the
Sacrament - we again readily admit that it is a man-made title given to a Sacrament that
was founded by Christ (John 20:22-23) -, but the concept is there recorded, as is the
founding of this sacrament.
 |
Insofar as the Mass is concerned, yet again we readily
admit that the title "the Mass" may not be found in the New Testament, for it is
a man-made title which was given to a form of worship which was originally founded by
Christ Jesus, as can be seen the Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 26 verses 26-28.
This is the very essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the core of the Liturgy,
it is around this that the Mass is centered. The form of worship which grew out of this
core, this "seed", is termed the "Mass" by the Faithful. Many
different titles were given to the Mass through the ages, as the following citation shows: |
It (the Mass) was called Mystagogia by St. Dionysius, from
the fact that it was a divine participation of, or initiation into, the sacred mysteries.
It was termed Synaxis, or the union, because in virtue of it we are all
united with Christ our Savior. The name Anaphora was applied to it from the fact
that it raises our hearts and minds to God. The term Eulogia was given it from its
propitiatory nature; Hierurgia, because it was a sacred action; Mysterion,
from the Mysteries it contained; and Deipnon, or banquet, from the fact that
it gave us the living Bread unto the eternal nourishment of our souls. Then, again, it was
called Teleion, or perfection, because it was the sacrifice of that Holy Lamb,
without spot or blemish, who came upon earth to be the perfection and completion of the
ancient law. (History of the Mass, p. 3)
There were many different names and titles applied to the Mass, and
there are many different forms of the Mass (such as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom,
the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Tridentine Liturgy, and so forth), and there are many
different prayers and rubrics which have been added to the Mass over time, but the
essence, the core, has remained the same. It is the same Sacrifice as that mentioned by
Christ in the verses cited above. The Early Christian Mass was even mentioned by St. Paul
in I Cor 10:16.
Lastly, concerning the practice of infant baptism, it was practiced
in the Early Church. As the following citations prove:
"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples
from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin
Martyr, First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:167
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say,
who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and
old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (inter A.D. 180-199),in ANF,I:391
Here Tertullian comments on his preference of delaying baptism in
deference to the traditional practice of baptizing infants writes:
"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and
even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in
the case of little children." Tertullian, On Baptism,18(A.D. 200/206),in ANF,III:678
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they
can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer
or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D.
215), in AT,33
"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the
Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants
which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace
of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3(post A.D. 244),in
JUR,I:208
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought
not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of
ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not
be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this
was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think
is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.." Cyprian,
To Fidus, Epistle 58(54):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354
"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for
Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of
the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses.
For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart
unsealed and uninitaited." Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D.
381),in NPNF2,7:370
"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any
sins." Chrysostom John, Ad Neophytos,(A.D. 388),in LCF,169
" 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he
cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one
prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387), in JUR,2:169
"Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of
baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the
universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His
apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same
benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the
faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may
be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and
enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and
darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy
by their actual transgression, original sin only is left." Augustine, On forgiveness
of sin, and baptism,39[26](A.D. 412),in NPNF1,V:30
"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of
this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly
contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is
the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children,
because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive
in Christ." Augustine, Epistle 167,7,21(A.D. 415),in NPNF1,I:530
"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that
infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be
anathema." Council of Carthage, Canon 2,(A.D. 418),in Denzinger 101
Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel
with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning those infants
alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not do of their own will, when
they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of
their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar."
African Code, Canon 47/51(A.D. 419), in NPNF2,XIV:463
"QUESTION XIX. Concerning those who after being baptized in
infancy were captured by the Gentiles, and lived with them after the manner of the
Gentiles, when they come back to Roman territory as still young men, if they seek
communion, what shall be done?
REPLY. If they have only lived with Gentiles and eaten sacrificial
food, they can be purged by fasting and laying on of hands, in order that for the future
abstaining from things offered to idols, they may be partakers of Christ's mysteries. But
if they have either worshiped idols or been polluted with manslaughter or fornication,
they must not be admitted to communion, except by public penance." Pope Leo the Great
[reigned A.D. 440-461],To Rusticus, Epistle 167(A.D. 459),in NPNF2,XII:112
"But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer
answer can be given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there
is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing
thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days' sepulture; so that, when the infant is a
third time lifted out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be
expressed." Gregory the Great [reigned A.D. 590-604], To Leander, Epistle 43 (A.D.
591), in NPNF2,XII:88
After reading the above, it is quite clear that David Rigg’s
church bears no resemblance to the Early Church in this regard. It’s belief system
with regard to Infant Baptism is completely novel, it’s beliefs regarding Scripture
as our sole rule of faith is novel, it’s rejection of the Primacy of St. Peter and
the Popes is novel. Let us remind the reader of the fact that novel doctrines and heretics
are condemned in Sacred Scripture (Galatians 1:8; 1 Timothy 4:1-2; Titus 3:10).
Thus, Catholics argue that since the Council
of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one
volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it
only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this.
First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was
the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church.
This is simply and utterly ridiculous. There are quite a few points
which are evidence in favor of the fact that the "church which held the Council of
Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic
Church." In the first place, the Canon of books which it defined is the exact same as
that which the Catholic Canon has today, including the Deutero-Canonical books. In the
second place, St. Augustine of Hippo (a Catholic Bishop) gave an address at the Synod of
Hippo, which was held in the year 393 A.D. To provide a citation from St. Augustine’s
address:
We have, however, the Catholic faith in the Creed, known to
the faithful and committed to memory, contained in a form of expression as concise as has
been rendered admissible by the circumstances of the case; the purpose of which
[compilation] was, that individuals who are but beginners and sucklings among those who
have been born again in Christ, and who have not yet been strengthened by most diligent
and spiritual handling and understanding of the divine Scriptures, should be furnished
with a summary, expressed in few words, of those matters of necessary belief which were
subsequently to be explained to them in many words, as they made progress and rose to [the
height of] divine doctrine, on the assured and steadfast basis of humility and charity. It
is underneath these few words, therefore, which are thus set in order in the Creed, that
most heretics have endeavored to conceal their poisons; whom divine mercy has withstood,
and still withstands, by the instrumentality of spiritual men, who have been counted
worthy not only to accept and believe the Catholic faith as expounded in those
terms, but also thoroughly to understand and apprehend it by the enlightenment imparted by
the Lord. For it is written, "Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand." But
the handling of the faith is of service for the protection of the Creed; not, however, to
the intent that this should itself be given instead of the Creed, to be committed to
memory and repeated by those who are receiving the grace of God, but that it may guard the
matters which are retained in the Creed against the insidious assaults of the heretics, by
means of Catholic authority and a more entrenched defence. (A Treatise on Faith and the Creed)
I ask the reader to take notice of the portions of the above-given
citation which are emphasized. In two places the word "Catholic" is mentioned,
and it is stated that one of the means that must be taken to guard the matters "which
are retained in the Creed" is by "means of catholic authority and a more
entrenched defence." St. Augustine here declares his belief in "catholic
authority," he declares that the Creed contains the "catholic faith," and
that it is through this means that those who have not yet read the Scriptures are to be
taught the afore-mentioned Catholic Faith. And furthermore, it would seem that St.
Augustine holds that there is an authority outside the Scriptures by which all these
things are safeguarded against the assaults made against them by heretics and schismatics.
The terms "catholic faith" are to be found all through the address.
St. Augustine was also the one who stated unequivocally the
following:
But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how
would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not
believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those
on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in
Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the
Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am
precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot
fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of
the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in
believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their
vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as
you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for
me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics.... (Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant
Fundamenti, i, 6 )
St. Augustine held that it was the authority of the Catholic Church
which gives the Gospels authority. St. Augustine further states that if the Manicheans
should tell him not to believe the Catholics (as David Riggs is doing), then they cannot
use the Gospel in bringing him to their faith, and he again reiterates the fact that it
was "at the command of the Catholics" that he believed in the Gospel. This is a
point that completely eliminates "sola scriptura," and points to the fact that
it is on the authority of the Catholic Church that they can accept the Scriptures as being
canonical. To recite one of the statements made by David Riggs:
Thus, Catholics argue..... all are indebted to
the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of
the Catholic Church.
This was also held by St. Augustine, one of the Bishops present at
the Synod of Hippo. And the authority of the Catholic Church was upheld by the Bishops of
the Synod. Furthermore, only the Roman Catholic Church today lays claim to such authority.
The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does
her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established
by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle
Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down
to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which,
not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though
all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic
Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then
in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep
a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of
our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully
disclose itself. (Contra Epistolam
Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti )
The above-given citation shows that St. Augustine accepted the
authority and primacy of the Apostle St. Peter, and furthermore that he accepted the
succession of Priests beginning from seat of the Apostle St. Peter, down to the time when
the above was written. Furthermore, he points out that if one were to ask where "the
Catholic Church meets" no heretic will dare to point to his own chapel or house,
meaning that the "Catholic Church" was a distinct denomination, and that he was
a member of this denomination. I ask the reader to please scroll up to the citation from
St. Augustine’s "A Treatise
on Faith and the Creed," and to take special notice of the portion where he says:
We have, however, the catholic faith in the Creed, known to
the faithful and committed to memory, contained in a form of expression as concise as has
been rendered admissible by the circumstances of the case;
This is a very clear statement to the effect that both St.
Augustine, and the people whom he was addressing, were of the same denomination. As
pointed out above by St. Augustine, no heretic would dare to point to his own chapel or
house and claim that they were Catholic. This is sufficient to show that the Bishops who
were present at the Synod of Hippo were Catholics, and of the same Faith as St. Augustine.
What remains to be shown, and is easily shown, is that St. Augustine
was, in fact, Roman Catholic. In the first place, practically everything which St.
Augustine teaches, has been Church Teaching for thousands of years. In the Second place,
St. Augustine numbers as Catholic Bishops the Bishops of Rome, the successors of St.
Peter. To cite St. Augustine:
For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into
account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we
reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said:
"Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken
continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus,
Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus,
Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix,
Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus,
Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.
(Letters 53:1 2)
St. Augustine here declares his alliance with the Bishops of Rome,
please take note of the emphasized portions of the text. Hence, we have St. Augustine
proclaiming his allegiance to Catholicism in numerous places, we have St. Augustine
stating that if it weren’t for the authority of the Catholic Church he wouldn’t
believe the Gospels, we have St. Augustine defending the Priesthood, and we have St.
Augustine claiming as Catholic Bishops the Bishops of Rome, successors of St. Peter.
Furthermore, St. Augustine also refers to the Diocese of Rome as the "Apostolical
See" and the Bishop of Rome as "Pope" in the following statement:
For while so many and such important ecclesiastical documents were
passing and repassing between the Apostolical See and the African bishops, --and,
moreover, when the proceedings in this matter in that see were completed, with Coelestius
present and making answer,--what sort of a letter, what decree, is found of Pope Zosimus,
of venerable memory, wherein he prescribed that it must be believed that man is born
without any taint of original sin? (A
Treatise Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Chp. 5 )
I would like to point out that in the above citation St. Augustine's
statements concerning the ecclesiastical documents passing between the Apostolic See
(situated in Rome), and the African Bishops, not to mention his later statements
concerning Pope Zosimus, show that he accepted the authority of Rome, that Rome used its
authority over the African Bishops, and that the African Bishops (who were present at the
Council of Hippo) accepted the authority of the Pope in Rome, and as his statement
concerning the decree of Pope St. Zosimus and original sin shows, he also accepted the
Pope's authority over spiritual matters..
Here we have St. Augustine praising a Pope of Rome, declaring that
they are Catholic Bishops, stating that it is on the authority of the Catholic Church that
he believes the Gospels, defending the Priesthood, and so forth. Who would doubt that St.
Augustine was, indeed, a Roman Catholic Bishop? A reading of his writings would be
sufficient to prove that. The vast majority of the things taught/believed by St. Augustine
are also taught/believed by the Catholic Church. If St. Augustine was not Roman Catholic,
then what else was he? What other Church lays claim to the See of Rome? What other Church
claims to be the successors of St. Peter? What other Church claims such authority over the
Sacred Scriptures?
For example, the church of 390 had no
crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth
century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and
naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667).
Even if what our opponent said above is true, it would have been
completely logical for them not to openly venerate Holy Images or Crucifixes. One must
keep in mind the fact that they were just coming out of the Roman Persecutions which had
ended less than a century before. Not to mention the fact that many of the Christians of
the time still had the persecution of Julian the Apostate fresh in their memories. To
publicly venerate a Crucifix or a Holy Image during the persecutions was to publicly
proclaim oneself a Christian, and like holding a red flag in front of wolves. They would
have had a one way ticket to the Coliseum. Hence, any veneration of either Crucifixes or
images would have been done in private and in secret.
Secondly, our opponent seems to have been very selective about which
portions of the Catholic Encyclopedia he was going to read. The veneration of Holy Images
has its roots in the Old Testament. There is extensive archaeological evidence of the fact
that Holy Images had a very important place in the Hebrew religion prior to the advent of
Christianity. As the Catholic Encyclopedia said:
Throughout the Old Testament there are instances of representations
of living things, not in any way worshipped, but used lawfully, even ordered by the law as
ornaments of the tabernacle and temple. (Catholic Encyclopedia 1913)
We see that they were even ordered by law to have images as
"ornaments of the tabernacle and the temple." In Exodus 25:18-22 the Hebrews are
commanded to make two angels of gold for the Ark of the Covenant. In 1 Kings 6:23-28 we
see gold cherubims again used in the decoration for the house of the Lord.
Insofar as the Early Centuries of Christianity are concerned, it is
utterly ridiculous for my opponent to claim that they didn’t venerate Holy Images.
The catacombs were filled with paintings of Christ, of the Saints, scenes from the Bible,
and so forth. As the Catholic Encyclopedia pointed out:
"That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with
paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too
obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact. ... And there
are especially pictures of Christ as the Good Shepherd (as seen in the
image to the right), as lawgiver, as a child in His
mother's arms, of His head alone in a circle, of our Lady alone, of St. Peter and St. Paul
-- pictures that are not scenes of historic events, but, like the statues in our modern
churches, just memorials of Christ and His saints." (Catholic Encyclopedia 1913)
To claim that the Early Christians did not venerate Holy Images is a
completely ridiculous claim on the part of my opponent. Archaeology has proven that they
did, and "from the very beginning." The Catholic Encyclopedia also states
further on:
"In the catacombs there is little that can be described as
sculpture; there are few statues for a very simple reason. Statues are much more difficult
to make, and cost much more than wall-paintings. But there was no principle against them.
Eusebius describes very ancient statues at Caesarea Philippi representing Christ and the
woman He healed there ("Hist. eccl.", VII, xviii, Matt., ix, 20-2). The earliest
sarcophagi had bas-reliefs. As soon as the Church came out of the catacombs, became
richer, had no fear of persecution, the same people who had painted their caves began to
make statues of the same subjects. The famous statue of the Good Shepherd in the Lateran
Museum was made as early as the beginning of the third century, the statues of Hippolytus
and of St. Peter date from the end of the same century." (Catholic Encyclopedia 1913)
The archaeological evidence against my opponent is overwhelming. As
pointed out above by the Catholic Encyclopedia, there are still statues and images from
the Early Centuries of Christianity available for anyone to see.
To claim that the Church of the year 390 "had no...
images" is to do nothing but close ones eyes to the Truth, to show forth ones
ignorance and prejudice against the Catholic Faith. There is no other explanation for
this. My opponent cites the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I must assume that he has read the
portions which dealt with Holy Images and so forth. And by quoting it, it would seem that
he holds it as being a very reliable source of information. But he persists in spreading
his falsehoods and lies despite the evidence against him, of which evidence he is
obviously very much aware.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
From that time to the Iconoclast Persecution holy images are in
possession all over the Christian world. St. Ambrose (d. 397) describes in a letter how
St. Paul appeared to him one night, and he recognized him by the likeness to his pictures
(Ep. ii, in P. L., XVII, 821). St. Augustine (d. 430) refers several times to pictures of
our Lord and the saints in churches (e. g. "De cons. Evang.", x in P. L., XXXIV,
1049; "Contra Faust. Man.", xxii 73, in P. L., XLII, 446); he says that some
people even adore them ("De mor. eccl. cath.", xxxiv, P. L., XXXII, 1342). St.
Jerome (d. 420) also writes of pictures of the Apostles as well-known ornaments of
churches (In Ionam, iv). St. Paulinus of Nola (d. 431) paid for mosaics representing
Biblical scenes and saints in the churches of his city, and then wrote a poem describing
them (P. L., LXI, 884). Gregory of Tours (d. 594) says that a Frankish lady, who built a
church of St. Stephen, showed the artists who painted its walls how they should represent
the saints out of a book (Hist. Franc., II, 17, P. L., LXXI, 215). In the East St. Basil
(d. 379), preaching about St. Barlaam, calls upon painters to do the saint more honour by
making pictures of him than he himself can do by words ("Or. in S. Barlaam", in
P. G., XXXI). St. Nilus in the fifth century blames a friend for wishing to decorate a
church with profane ornaments, and exhorts him to replace these by scenes from Scripture
(Epist. IV, 56). St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) was so great a defender of icons that
his opponents accused him of idolatry (for all this see Schwarzlose, "Der
Bilderstreit" i, 3-15). St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) was always a great defender of
holy pictures (see below). (Catholic
Encyclopedia 1913)
The Church of 390 most certainly did have Holy Images, and
they venerated them. To claim otherwise is to support deception, fraud, and an open
prejudice against the Catholic Faith. David Riggs has absolutely no knowledge of the time
period which he presumes to write about. If he did, then he would be openly dishonest and
would be openly attempting to deceive his readers. If he didn’t, then he has
absolutely no right to write articles on the subject at all.
The church of 390 took communion under both
kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416
A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111).
Communion under both kinds is not the custom in the Latin Rite, this
is true. But it is STILL practiced in the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, and
has always been practiced in the Eastern Rites. A simple investigation of Catholicism
would have been sufficient to prove David Riggs wrong on this point as well. David’s
dishonesty and open hatred of the Catholic Church is sufficient to disqualify him from any
serious discussion of the topics at hand.
The church of 390 was a church altogether
different from the Roman Catholic Church today.
We have seen that on all the points which David Riggs has brought
forth to prove that the "church of 390 was a church altogether different from the
Roman Catholic Church today" are completely wrong, with the exception of the
veneration of crucifixes. All the points he brought forth are externals, and it really
wouldn’t matter much if they had changed or not. The beliefs are still the same.
But we have seen above that in the case of veneration of Holy Images
and communion under both kinds, they haven’t changed at all. The Church of 390 did
venerate Holy Images like the Church of today does. The Church of 390 did distribute Holy
Communion under both species, just as many Rites in the Catholic Church do today.
The Church of 390 is certainly and indisputably the same Church as
the Roman Catholic Church today. St. Augustine, who was one of the leading Bishops of the
Catholic Church of the time, alone is sufficient proof of this. His devotion to the
Catholic Faith, his belief in the Primacy of the successors of St. Peter, and so forth,
and so on, is sufficient. But the resemblance doesn’t stop there. It continues into
the veneration of Holy Images, among many many other things. There is no other Church that
the Catholic Church of the fourth century could have possibly been, but the Roman Catholic
Church of today.
In actuality, David Riggs and whatever Church he is a member of
bears absolutely no resemblance to the Church of the Early Centuries. The Church of the
Early Centuries baptized infants (proven above), David Riggs and his church do not. The
Church of the Early Centuries recognized the authority of the Catholic Church over the
Scriptures, David Riggs and his church do not. The Church of the Early Centuries venerated
images and saints and the Blessed Mother of the Lord, David Riggs and his church do not.
Perhaps one of the most telling differences is the fact that the Church of the Early
Centuries believed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church... while David
Riggs and his church do not. Permit me to take a few moments and trace this doctrine from
the Early Centuries all the way up to the year 500 A.D., I would also like to add that
David Riggs’ own website bears witness to the fact that the Catholic Church has
always taught this Dogma down
through the centuries.
1) Saint Irenaeus (died A.D. 202): "[The Church] is the
entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to
avoid them ... We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that
they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come ... Resist them in defense of
the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and
imparted to her sons." (Against Heresies, Book III)
2) Origen (died A.D. 254): "He who does not believe will be
condemned. He who is of little faith, let him be reproved; he who is without the faith,
let him be despised. Those who are estranged from the faith will be punished. Such were
the Jews and pagans, and in their evils they have vanished. Such are the heretics. And so,
on Judgment Day they will be condemned" (Commentary on Matthew)
3) Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258): "There is no salvation
outside the Catholic Church ... and it is they who in His Church have labored in doing
good works whom the Lord says shall be received into the Kingdom of Heaven on the Day of
Judgment." (Epistle 73:21)
4) Bishop Firmilean (died A.D. 269): "What is the greatness of
his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be
granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one
Church." (Anti-Nicene Fathers)
5) Saints Cosmas and Damian (died A.D. 303): "There is
absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church" (Saints to Remember)
6) St. Catherine of Alexandria (died A.D. 307) "It is necessary
for you to believe the Catholic Faith and to be baptized, as must every man in order to
save his soul." (Saints to Know and Love)
7) Lactantius (died A.D. 310): "It is the Catholic Church alone
which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the Faith,
this is the temple of God; into which if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone
shall go out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal salvation." (The
Divine Institutes)
8) Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386): "Abhor all
heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a
`brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act
of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men,
therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For
what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding
all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away
because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I
will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship
with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God
turns away." (The Fathers of the Church)
9) Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): "Where Peter is therefore,
there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ...Although
many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward."
(The Fathers of the Church)
10) St. John Chrysostom (died A.D. 407): "We know that
salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved
outside the Catholic Church and Catholic Faith." (De Capto Eutropio)
11) St. Gaudentius of Brescia (died A.D. 410): "It is certain
that all men of Noah's time perished, except those who merited to be in the Ark, which was
a figure of the Church. Likewise, they cannot in any way now be saved who are aliens from
the Apostolic Faith and the Catholic Church" (De Lect. Evangel)
12) Bishop Niceta of Remesiana (died A.D. 415): "He is the Way
along which we journey to our salvation; the Truth, because He rejects what is false; the
Life, because He destroys death. ...All who from the beginning of the world were, or are,
or will be justified - whether Patriarchs, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or Prophets,
whether Apostles or martyrs, or any others - make up one Church, because they are made
holy by one faith and way of life, stamped with one Spirit, made into one Body whose Head,
as we are told, is Christ. I go further. The angels and virtues and powers in heaven are
co-members in this one Church, for, as the Apostle teaches us, in Christ `all things
whether on the earth or in the heavens have been reconciled.' You must believe, therefore,
that in this one Church you are gathered into the Communion of Saints. You must know that
this is the one Catholic Church established throughout the world, and with it you must
remain in unshaken communion. There are, indeed, other so called `churches' with which you
can have no communion. ...These `churches' cease to be holy, because they were deceived by
the doctrines of the devil to believe and behave differently from what Christ commanded
and from the tradition of the Apostles." (The Fathers of the Church)
13) Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): "As I follow no leader save
Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter.
For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. ...This is the Ark of Noah,
and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. ...And as for
heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible
way that the Church's enemies are also my enemies." (Manual of Patrology and History
of Theology)
14) Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): "No man can find salvation
except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except
salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can
answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic
Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)
15) St. Patrick (died A.D. 493): "Not without just cause does
the Apostle say: 'Where the righteous shall scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and
the ungodly transgressor of the law find himself?' (1Peter 4:18). The Words are not mine,
but God's and the Apostle's and Prophet's who have never lied: "He who believes and
is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be damned' (Mk 16:16). God
hath spoken!" (The Writings of St. Patrick)
David Riggs himself proclaimed that this was a doctrine of the
Catholic Church, and Catholic Church teaching when he stated (in the article which we linked to above):
Official Roman Catholic position:
There is no salvation outside the Catholic church!
Non-Catholic churchgoers will be cast into hell!
That the Catholic Church of today holds the same Dogma as that of
the Early Church concerning salvation for people such as David Riggs who are outside the
Church, speaks volumes in refutation of David Rigg’s completely absurd and ignorant
statement that "The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman
Catholic Church today."
Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops
did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time
"officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until
the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking
officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought
should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).
I would like to point out here that the Synod of Hippo was
not the only Synod which provided a catalogue of the books of the Bible. There was also
the Council of Rome and the Council of Carthage, both of which took place at about the
same time. But aside from that, the Council of Hippo made it very clear that they were
deciding which books are to be read in the Churches of Africa (at the very least). To cite
the Council:
(Council of Hippo [A.D. 393])"[It has been decided] that
besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine
Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the
Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of
the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books,
Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36).
The above citation makes it very clear that they were deciding which
books could be read as Scripture within the dioceses of those who partook in the Synod.
The third Council of Carthage went even further and sent their listing of books overseas
to be confirmed by the Pope, which then made their listing of Sacred Books authoritative
in the Catholic Church at that time. Once the Pope confirmed them, they were official. As
the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 said:
At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at
Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon
(i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The latter
synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be
consulted about confirming this canon". St. Augustine was one among the forty-four
bishops who signed the proceedings. (Catholic Encyclopedia 1913, )
Once the Canon was confirmed, it became authoritative for the
Catholic Church and official.
Secondly, God did not give councils the
authority to select His sacred books,
Of course. But God did give the Popes the authority to bind and to
loose. Christ Himself said unto St. Peter:
Matthew 16:19 [DR] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in
heaven.
And the successors of St. Peter chose to delegate this authority to
the Bishops at the Councils in question. As St. Augustine said, they sent the Canon of
Scriptures to the "Church across the seas" for confirmation, which was given by
the Pope. Hence, it had the fullest of apostolic authority behind it. Christ Himself
placed no limits upon the authority which He delegated to St. Peter. Christ said
"whatsoever thou shalt bind...." The words "whatsoever" mean precisely
what they say "whatsoever." The Random House College Dictionary (p. 1497) points
out that "whatsoever" is a "form of whatever" which the Dictionary
defines as meaning "Anything." This would include the authority necessary to
authoritatively define which books are Scriptural and which books are not.
That the Catholic Church and St. Peter had such authority is
sufficiently proven through the writings of the Early Church Fathers. As St. Augustine
said, he wouldn’t accept the Gospel if it weren’t for the authority of the
Catholic Church.
Council of
Ephesus, AD 431"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages,
that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the
faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given
the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and
judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due
order, is his successor and holds his place. (Philip, presbyter, legate of the Apostolic
See at the" (Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy,
by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess p 258)
nor does He expect men to receive His sacred
books only because of councils or on the basis of councils.
David Riggs here seems to think that he has the authority/knowledge
necessary to dictate to us precisely what God expects, and what He doesn’t except.
The fact of the matter is, without the councils in question we would have no way of
knowing which books were canonical and which books were not. As G. K. Chesterton said,
"It was only the Roman Catholic Church that saved the Protestant truths. It may be
right to rest on the Bible, but there would be no Bible if the Gnostics had proved that
the Old Testament was written by the Devil, or had littered the world with Apocryphal
Gospels."
It takes no vote or sanction of a council to
make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books
were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today.
If that is so, then maybe David Riggs can explain why it is that
there were so many truly apocryphal books which were in existence at that time, and why
many people accepted them as being true. Possibly David Riggs could also explain to us how
one would be able to discern which books were Canonical and Biblical and which ones were
not, when he had several hundred different books to choose from? How would one know that
he had not made a mistake and included an apocryphal book among those which are listed as
being canonical? How would one know that he was not following a false Gospel? Or a book
which was not inspired at all?
I am very interested in hearing David’s response to the above
questions. And I would also like to find out where one could go for an authoritative
infallible judgment on the matter, rather than relying upon one’s own personal
fallible non-authoritative opinions. Furthermore, the writings of the Early Christians (as
was proven elsewhere) show that there were quite a few who held to books which David Riggs
considers "apocryphal," such as the Deutero-Canonical books. A short listing of
some of the Early Christians who held these books as being Canonical and Scriptural would
not be out of place here, but as it is I link to an article on my page further down which
provides over twenty pages worth of citations from the Early Christians on
this subject.
A council of men in 390 with no divine
authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were
inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the
Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
In the first place, as we have shown above, the Council did
have divine authority. In the second place, how could one be absolutely certain which
books were canonical and which ones were not without an authoritative decision from some
infallible body? How could one be certain that any of the books of the Bible are
infallible?
Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic
Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books.
In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and
were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390
at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of
the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
The council of Hippo (390) officially ratified they canon St. Athanasius ( appearing for the first time in the Festal Epistle of St.
Athanasius A.D. 367), the Roman Catholic Bishop of Alexandria which had
already been accepted in Rome and throughout most of Christianity, naturally there would
be books containing the entire new Testament that date before the counsel of Hippo.
There are no complete new Testament Bibles that date before the the middle of the forth
century and St. Athanasius's Canon.
- 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all
of the New Testament books.
St. Athanasius, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Alexandria,
wrote his Easter letter to the churches and monasteries of his diocese and identified the
books they were to include in
their New Testament Scripture. Although St. Athanasius did not list a accurate canon for the Old Testament,(so we see that that the
first complete and accurate canon of the Bible didn't come about until the Catholic council of Hippo) . It was this St. Athanasius's New
Testament canon that was accepted by the church in Rome and ratified by church
leaders in Hippo Regius in 393 and in Carthage in 397. Carthage formally reaffirmed its
acceptance of the canon in 419.
"The Canon or list of approved New Testament books was
not approved by the Catholic Church until the 4th cent. a festal epistel of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D.367), as well as a
contemporary decree of pope St. Damasus in Rome (381)"(MacMillan Concicise Dictionary of World History,by Bruce Wetterau. © 1983)
"In 367 Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt,
made a canonical list of all the presently accepted New Testament books. Church councils
in subsequent decades established his list as final. "(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)
"The canon was even more firmly settled in 367. At that time
Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Easter letter to the churches and
monasteries of his diocese and identified the books they were to include in their New
Testament Scripture...Athanasius’ canon had long been accepted by the church in
Rome... his canon was ratified by church leaders in Hippo Regius in 393 and in Carthage in
397. Carthage formally reaffirmed its acceptance of the canon in 419."(The
Bible Through the Ages © 1996)
"Athanasius,
a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria and a significant theologian, delimited the canon and
settled the strife between East and West. On a principle of inclusiveness, both Revelation
and Hebrews (as part of the Pauline corpus) were accepted. The 27 books of the New
Testament--and they only--were declared canonical."(Britannica.com Inc © 1999-2000)
- 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of
all New Testament books except Revelation.
It is Important to note that even this author (David J. Riggs)
admits that Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem did not hold to the same Canon as do Christians do
today "list of all New Testament books except Revelation." clearly we see that
at the time of Cyril there was no formal canon of the new Testament as we know it
today.
- 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father
of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose
edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the
books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty
copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
Here we must point out that Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea lists
James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John as "disputed" and not held by all
Christians and not universally held as sacred.
"Eusebius shows the situation in the early 4th century.
Universally accepted are: the four Gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline Letters (including Hebrews),
I John, and I Peter. The disputed writings are of two kinds: (1) those known and accepted
by many (James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John, and (2) those called "spurious"
but not "foul and impious" (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of
Peter, Letter of Barnabas, Didache and possibly the Gospel of the Hebrews); finally there
are the heretically spurious (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Acts of John). Revelation is listed
both as fully accepted ("if permissible") and as spurious but not impious."
(Britannica.com Inc © 1999-2000)
- 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the
books of both the Old and New Testaments.
It is true that Origen did list all the books of the new Testament
but what David J. Riggs does not tell you if that Origen listed II Peter, II and III John,
Hebrews, James, and Jude not as "undisputed in the churches of God throughout the
whole world" but rather as "disputed" among the Christians of this time.
"Origen (died c. 254), Clement's pupil and one of the greatest
thinkers of the early church, distinguished at least three classes of writings, basing his
judgment on majority usage in places that he had visited: (1) homologoumena or
anantirrheta, "undisputed in the churches of God throughout the whole world"
(the four Gospels, 13 Pauline Letters, I Peter, I John, Acts, and Revelation); (2)
amphiballomena, "disputed" (II Peter, II and III John, Hebrews, James, and
Jude); and (3) notha, "spurious" (Gospel of the Egyptians, Thomas, and others).
He used the term "scripture" (graphe) for the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas,
and the Shepherd of Hermas"(Britannica.com
Inc © 1999-2000)
- 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books
of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told
by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from
all the canonical books.
- 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and
Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
- 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament
books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
- 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being
four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of
Paul and Revelation.
- Besides the above, the early church fathers have
handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that
it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
Clearly, the above statements By David J. Riggs injure rather than
help his position. obviously judging from these above statements there was indeed much
confusion as to what books belonged in the new testament and which did not. not one of the
early Christians listed above (with the exception of Athanasius, bishop at
Alexandria) held the same cannon of the new testament as David J. Riggs does. Secondly, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations
from all the Old Testament books as well included a vast number of citations from the seven Old Testament Deutero Canonical books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the
Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) and yet
Mr. Riggs does not accept the early Christians on this matter. Clearly, David Rigg's
hypocritical nature is shown by the fact that he truly does not believe these early
Christians had any real authority to determine the sacred scriptures. If he did,
then he'd have to 1) admit that an authority outside the Sacred Scriptures determined
which books were canonical, a point he vehemently contests in this article, and 2) admit
that he's missing seven books of Sacred Scripture.
For a listing of over twenty pages of citations from the Early
Church Fathers on this subject, click here.
Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in
their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles
themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read
among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you
yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the
Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy
Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in
the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt.
24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).
Of course "the New Testament books (individually) were in
existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age." and
"the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation" it is also true as
I have shown above their were hundreds of Apocrypha books and revered Christian writings
circulating among the early Christians. some of these pseudo-Testaments and Christian
writings were accepted by Christians as being true scripture, this is exemplified in a
fourth century Codex Sinaiticus which included the Letter of Barnabas and most of
the Shepherd of Hermas. We had seen of that the authenticity of
many the books such as, II Peter, II and III John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation
were were "disputed".The new Testament as we know what was not to be bound
together into one book or be universally accepted as true until St.
Athanasius, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, identified the books to be include in
the New Testament as Scripture it was this canon (A.D. 367) that was
accepted by the church in Rome and ratified by church leaders in Hippo Regius in
393 and in Carthage in 397. Carthage formally reaffirmed its acceptance of the canon in
419. This is a historical fact and widely excepted by most scholars both Catholic,
Protestant and secular.
"There are many more than these 27 early Christian works.
Selection of New Testament books as canonical was slow, the present canon appearing for
the first time in the Festal Epistle of St. Athanasius (A.D. 367). All major Christian
churches use the same canon."(The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third
Edition Copyright © 1994)
"The 39th festal letter of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria,
sent to the churches under his jurisdiction in 367, ended all uncertainty about the limits
of the New Testament canon. In the so-called festal letter, preserved in a collection of
annual Lenten messages given by Athanasius, he listed as canonical the 27 books that
remain the contents of the New Testament, although he arranged them in a different order.
Those books of the New Testament, in their present-day order, are the four Gospels
(Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2
Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1
John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation." (Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997-2000)
Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to
the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any
time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from
non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus
which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount
Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New
Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament.
Once again we see that Mr. Riggs has
not told us the full truth of the matter. The Codex Sinaiticus is a wonderful example of
the confusion in the early 4th century as to what was canonical was not. David J.
Riggs did not mention that the Codex
Sinaiticus not only contained all the books of the present the New Testament but also
included among these sacred texts the Letter of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd
of Hermas. There are only 27 sacred books in a New testament unfortunately
for David Riggs attempted argument the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are
not listed among them. secondly, Mr. Riggs also forgot to
mention that the Codex
Sinaiticus was not a pure fourth century text 15000 corrections had been made this
document as late as the seventh century. "or S, Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in
1859 by Tischendorf at the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai (hence,
Sinaiticus) after a partial discovery of 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex there
in 1844. Though some of the Old Testament is missing, a whole 4th-century New
Testament is preserved, with the Letter of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas ...The
text type of is in the Alexandrian group, although it has some Western readings.
Later corrections representing attempts to alter the text to a different standard probably
were made about the 6th or 7th century at Caesarea."(Britannica.com Inc © 1999-2000)
"A commentary on the text.....describing the 15,000
changes made by contemporary or later hands." (A
Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament By Frederick Henry Ambrose
Scrivener p.11, Publisher: Wipf & Stock Publishers Pub. Date: November © 1997 )
Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made
early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D.
Again, Mr. Riggs has altered the truth the Codex Sinaiticus in a attempt
to add credibility to his claim that it was "one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by
Constantine" in 331 A.D. The truth is scholars
are certain that this manuscript was made Mid-4th c. not Early in the fourth as would have
believe. Mr. Riggs's intention here is to undermined the historical fact that it was the
CATHOLIC CHURCH and ONLY the Catholic church that determined the Canon of the new
testament, Mr. Riggs hopes that by linking the name "Constantine" to the Codex Sinaiticus and altering the date of this manuscript's creation it will add credence to his pseudo-history.
The oldest codex
containing all the works in the NT (plus Barnabas & the Shepherd of Hermas) dates to
the mid-4th c. CE. This sizeable volume (346+ vellum sheets) originally contained the OT
as well, most of which is now lost. Since its discovery in 1859 by Count Konstantin von
Tischendorf at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai it has been regarded by biblical
scholars as the most important NT ms. The text contains many "corrections"
inserted by later scribes. Since these alterations tend to bring the text in line with
later mss., scholars & translators generally favor the original
"uncorrected" readings, especially those supported by earlier papyri &
Vaticanus. [The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible vol. 4 (NY/Nashville:
Abingdon Press,© 1962), pp. 378-79].
This manuscript found by a German scholar named,
Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all
has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.
Who does Mr. Riggs belive copied
and assembled the Codex Sinaiticus? Certainly not the Protestants, who did not even come
into existence until 16th century. Mr. Riggs
would have his readers believe falsely that just because the Codex Sinaiticus was STOLEN from the Monks
of Mount Sinai's St Catherine Monastery
by a Protestant scholar it "has never been
in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church". Fortunately, it takes more then a act of theft in order to lay claim of
creation. The truth is in the mid 4th century when this manuscript was copied there WAS
ONLY ONE Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
"It belongs to us,' said Father John of the monastery, which is
in the foothills of Mount Sinai. St Catherine's has submitted a formal request for the
Bible's return...The monks claim that the Bible was stolen about a century ago by a German
scholar, Count Tischendorf, and was later seized by the Russian royal family." ("Monks demand
oldest Bible back" Reported By Richard Brooks and Senay Boztas on February 20,
2000. Copyright © 2000 THE SUNDAY TIMES:
NEWS Newspapers Ltd.)the
Another valuable manuscript that has never
been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus.
It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was
a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in
1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from
Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript
was also made in the fourth century and,
Again we see Mr. Riggs is not giving us to facts of the
case the Codex Alexandrianus is not thought to be one of the fifty Greek
Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine, neither is it from the fourth century as
Mr. Riggs would have his readers falsely believe. scholars have determined the Codex
Alexandrianus is from the fifth century, almost a hundred years after Constantine
commissioned the fifty to be copied.
"A,
Codex Alexandrinus, is an early-5th-century manuscript containing most of the New
Testament but with lacunae (gaps) in Matthew, John, and II Corinthians, plus the inclusion
of the extracanonical I and II Clement. In the Gospels, the text is of the Byzantine type,
but, in the rest of the New Testament, it is Alexandrian. In 1627 the A uncial was
presented to King Charles I of England by the Patriarch of Constantinople; it has been in
the British Museum, in London, since 1751." (Britannica.com Inc © 1999-2000)
along with the Codex Sinaiticus,
is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.
Mr. Riggs has again altered the truth,
scholars have determined the Codex Alexandrianus is from the fifth century clearly it
could not be one of the 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine in 331 A.D. to be produced
for the churches he was erected in Constantinople. secondly most scholars a believe the Codex Sinaiticus was not one of the fifty Greek Constantine
Bibles. as we have seen throughout this article Mr. Riggs has purposely changed the truth
in order to spread his lies and attempt to eliminate the role the Catholic Church played
in establishing the Bible.
"These ( Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus)
are...not among the 50 that Constantine commissioned"(The
Bible Through the Ages © 1996)
"Some are even inclined to regard Codex Sinaiticus as
one of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine bade Eusebius of Caesarea to have prepared
in 331 for the churches of Constantinople; but there is no sign of its having been at
Constantinople."(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV, Copyright © 1908 by Robert
Appleton Company)
In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman
Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures
down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood.
First, To proclaim the Truth is not to
"boast". secondly Mr. Riggs has been completely unable to prove this point. On
the contrary we see that it is Mr. Riggs has consistently twisted the truth in a perverted
attempt to prove his pseudo-history. The claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has
been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is
nothing but the TRUTH, as we have shown, the Catholic Church even had to protect the
sacred scriptures from the hateful
hands of the Protestant "Reformers". just as today the Catholic Church must
protect that canon of the septuagint which contain the Deuterocanonical books
from Protestants like Mr.
Riggs.
The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not
write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and
church of which it speaks.
As we have seen above Mr. Riggs was been completely
unable to prove this point as well. On the contrary we see that it is Mr. Riggs's
interpretations of the scriptures that do not meet the description of the doctrine and
church of which the Bible speaks.
The New Testament was completed before the end of
the first century, A.D.
As we have seen above the individual books of the
New Testament were indeed completed the before the end of the first century, A.D. These 27
sacred books were spread widely throughout world with over a hundred Apocrypha books. It
was not until the Catholic Church with its authority determined once and for all which
books were sacred and which were not, creating the New Testament Canon as we know it
today. It has been the Catholic Church which has protected the Bible throughout the
centuries from those who would pervert or deny sacred scripture. Not just from such
anti-Christian groups as the Gnostics, but also such anti-Christians as the "Reformers" Luther, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Gerhard, Chemnitz, and Calvin. Upon
rejecting the authority of the Roman Catholic Church these "Reformers" found that other than the Church there was NO authority
as to which books belonged in the bible and which books do not. Luther even went so fare as to deny canonicity to
Heb, Jas, Jude and Ap, and the early Lutherans followed him in this. These
16th century the Protestant did not stop with the New Testament these "Reformers" relegated the seven Old Testament
Deutero Canonical books of as "apocryphal" works, partly for the reason
that some of these books offered passages opposed to Protestant tenets (e.g. 2Mc 12,43 on
sacrifice for the dead; Tob 4,10; 2,9; Sir 3,3o; 29,11f on the merit of good works). Even
Mr. Riggs rejects these sacred books which were an integral part of the The
Septuagint the Version which Mr Riggs describes as the "version Christ
and His apostles used".
At the time of the Reformation. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. Luther ventured to declare the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse ‘apocryphal.’ Melanchthon, Gerhard,
and Chemnitz went in the same direction, and Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.(THE IMPERIAL ENCYCLOPEDIA AND DICTIONARY, Volume IV
© 1903 Garretson Cox & company)
Martin Luther had developed his theory that
only those books that taught his Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone should be accepted
as part of the canon. However, he didn't work out this theory until after he had lost a
debate with a Catholic (either Cardinal Cajetan in 1518 or Johann Eck of Ingolstadt in
1519 AD), when 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 was quoted to refute Martin Luther's "Faith
Alone." His subjective standards were also the given for his reason for claiming that
Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation were also not to be considered as fully
the Inspired Word of God. (Although, evidently the Lutherans of the 17th century added
these New Testament books back into their canon.)(The Books of The Bible © 1997)
We have studied, therefore, that the Catholic Church rightly argues
that one of its own Councils in 390 selected the Sacred books, one can accept them only on
the basis of Catholic authority, as St. Augustine said. We have proven this point by
showing: (1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, but it is only through the
infallibility and authority of the Church that we know what books are biblical, and which
ones are not. (2) Christ taught the people that they were to accept the authority of the
Church which He founded, which David Riggs does not. (3) It is historical fact that the
Council of Hippo in 390 was a Council of the Church that is now called the Roman Catholic
Church, as is shown by the statements of St. Augustine of Hippo. (4) God gave the Church
the authority to A) determine which books are Biblical, B) determine which interpretations
are false, C) protect and preserve the books of the Bible, from the corruptions of both
the Jews, the heathens, and the protestants. (5) The Catholic Church is solely responsible
for the writing, gathering, and selection, of the books of the New Testament. (6) The
Catholic Church has been the sole possessor of the complete Bible through most of the
history of Christianity, even the majority of protestants today do not hold to the
complete Bible. (7) It has been proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for
the gathering of the books of Sacred Scripture into one volume. Furthermore, it must be
noted that the majority of protestant sects reject seven entire books of the Bible, and
various parts of other books of the Bible.
