Art Sippo takes on a former Catholic who challenges him with some alleged Catholic disagreements over doctrinal and other theological matters. After an email from Art to "Paul", Sippo gets down to business in clearing up "Paul's" confusion. Our questioner's comments are in purple.
Dear Paul,
Your comments betray a subjectivist bias. Whatever you decide to be "tangential' is unimportant for salvation. You have no authority to make such a judgment, yet you try to trivialize the truths of the faith proclaimed by the ordained successors to the Apostles of whom my Lord and Savior said "he who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). In your self proclaimed religion, there are no uncomfortable truths to which you must submit. Anything you do not wish to believe is declared either false or "tangential" and ignored. This is not Christianity, but rebellion against God and his ordained ministers in the name of selfishness and human pride.
Unlike the Protestantism which is based on isolated verses taken out of context, historic Catholic Christianity uses the Scriptures in context. For this reason, most of my biblical quotations will be very extensive. Quoting isolated verses will rarely convey the proper meaning of biblical texts.
There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, Paul. As my Lord and Savior taught:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:1-16)
My Lord and Savior made it clear that he would found ONE community for his followers and that there would be ONE shepherd leading them. Jesus warned that impostors might want to pretend to be valid ministers but only those who came in by the sheep-gate -- the shepherd himself -- were true ministers of Jesus. At the conclusion of St. John's Gospel, Jesus gave this charge to St. Peter:
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." Jhn 21:16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." Jhn 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17)
Jesus prophesied that there would be ONE flock and ONE shepherd. He did not prophesy the founding of many little prot cults but ONE Church. While we all know that Jesus is the ultimate Good Shepherd, we all also know that he is not here now in the flesh to tend to his Church. But Jesus made provision for that. Before he ascended to the Father, he made St. Peter that ONE shepherd. In essence, St. Peter was made the vicarious replacement (or vicar) of Christ on earth. That ministry has been historically handed down to the Bishops of Rome in the Papacy. No man-made prot cult with its self proclaimed "ministers" can claim such historic precedence or authority. The Bible is clear. There would be only one true Church and it would have one shepherd at its head who would be the successor of St. Peter. Anyone else claiming such authority would be a "thief and a robber."
Now I will address some of your erroneous eisegesis of the Bible and show that the prot errors are not taught by the plain words of Scripture. With regard to "justification by faith alone" (JBFA), St. Paul never taught any such thing. In fact, the Bible itself explicitly condemns this prot error in James 2:24-
Jam 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." It is the ultimate blasphemy that the prot cults whose alleged "sole rule of faith" is the Scripture should have as their primary dogma a false teaching explicitly condemned by the Scriptures. When prot pundits claim that their cults "stand and fall" by this false doctrine, it is absolute proof that they are participating in a demonic deception. Only Satan himself could have invented such an obvious mockery of the word of God. But what does St. Paul really teach? Let us see what he actually says:
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:27-31)
Nowhere does St. Paul say that "faith alone" saves. Instead, what he says is that faith in Jesus apart from keeping the Mosaic Law is sufficient to save both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, one does not have to be a practicing Jew in order to be a Christian. This was a burning question in the Apostolic Church which would lead to the convening of the first General Council at Jerusalem as documented in Acts 15ff. The Judaizing party in the Apostolic Church had tried to convince the Gentiles that they needed to be circumcised but St. Paul always opposed this. It is opposition to Judaizing that is the theme of Romans and Galatians NOT opposition to "works righteousness." St. Paul proves this in verse 29 above which prot commentators usually ignore. In that verse he tells us what error he was opposing in verse 28. Clearly the "works of the Law" he was talking about in verse 28 were "mitzvah Torah": the commandments of the Mosaic Law which distinguished the observant Jew from the rest of mankind. We know this from the context of St. Paul's remarks, but also from the use of the term "Works of the Law" in the Jewish literature of the period. The main point of contention between the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and the Essenes (including the Qumran sectaries) was over "Mitzvah Torah": the proper way to perform works of the law. The dead sea scroll document 4QMMT shows this. When St. Paul brought this topic up, he was using the term in this contemporary sense, not in the sense that Luther and the prot tradition did.
This is clearly seen in Galatians also: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) Note well: what counts is not faith ALONE but "faith WORKING through love." This is the same thing that St. James. (Cf. James 2:20) In fact, St. Paul teaches the primacy of love over faith:
And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1 Cor. 13:2)
So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor. 13:13)
How does St. Paul view good works in general in the life of the Christian? Were they merely the results of being imputed as righteous with no bearing on salvation? I will let him speak for himself:
Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:3-16)
One verse from the above quotation needs to be emphasized: Rom 2:13 - "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." As you can see, St. Paul knows NOTHING about JBFA. He agrees with St. James that a man is not justified by faith alone but by works as well. In fact this same thing is stated again and again in the NT:
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matthew 7:13-13)
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:50)
And behold, one came up to [Jesus], saying, "Teacher, what must I do to gain eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19)
When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' (Matthew 25:31-40)
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But he who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great." (Luke 6:45-49)
But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father... (John 14:12)
If you love me, you will keep my commandments... (John 14:15)
He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)
I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. (John 15:5-10)
I appeal to you therefore, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2)
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. (Eph 6:5-8)
To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. (Titus 1:15-16)
And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:3-6)
Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. (1 John 5:1-3)
Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval. (1 Peter 2:12-19)
Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:19-27)
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? (James 2:12-16)
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:20-24)
Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. (Rev. 3:2-3)
Here is the patience of the saints: [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12)
Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. (Rev 22:14-15)
There are many similar passages, but these will suffice. As to St. Paul's specific attitude towards the notion of obeying an external moral standard or law, here is what he has to say:
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God,ending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Rom 13:1-15)
It is worth repeating the critical verse in this quotation:
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. (Rom 13:8)
St. Paul did not believe that it was impossible to keep the law, but -- following Jesus -- he taught that love of God and love of neighbor fulfilled the law. It was practicing the Mosaic Law (ie., keeping kosher) that he thought was unnecessary for salvation.
As he would say in Galatians:
Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another. (Gal. 5:19-25)
This verse also corrects another of your errors concerning "eternal security."
You quote Romans 8:30 in support of this prot error, but in that long catena of things that cannot separate us from God, there is no mention of SIN. While St. Paul told us that tribulation cannot separate us from the love of God, he also told us that fornication can. Sadly, I have heard many prots make this same error and I pity them for it is obvious that he word of God means less to them than the opinions of John Calvin.
Paul, as I have shown, your religion is a sham based upon lies and in flat contradiction with the Bible. This was only a brief criticism of the prot fraud but it struck at the heart of the error of these apostates. You have cut yourself off from the Fatherhood of God, the Body of Christ and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit. You sit now wailing and gnashing your teeth trying to create for yourself a religion that is better than the one founded by God himself. But no man-made religion like yours can save anyone.
I urge you to repent and return once again to Christ and his Church. The time is getting short.
Actually my position can be stated by quoting Sproul and Gerstner, The Bible is a Fallible Collection of Infallible books.
This is grossly incoherent and self contradictory. If the collection of books is fallible, then how do you know which ones are infallible? The entire credibility of the Bible falls apart. You cannot argue from general reliability to formal inerrancy. The gulf is almost as great as the creature/Creator distinction. If the collection is fallible, then none of the contents can be accepted as certain let alone inspired of God.
I was acquainted with John Gerstner in the 80s and 90s and was frankly unimpressed. We crossed on apologetic matters and frankly, he was lame to say the least. He wrote a trashy article in Sproul's "Table" magazine in which he claimed that St. Thomas Aquinas was a Protestant as far as his theology of justification was concerned. I was intrigued and looked forward to some citations from the Summa Theologiae to make the case for this. Arvin Vos had written a book about Calvin and St. Thomas showing some similarities but also many differences. I was shocked at the drivel in Gerstner's piece. He did not provide a single quotation from any of St. Thomas's work to substantiate his thesis. The only quotation from St. Thomas in the article was on a peripheral matter unrelated to the main theme of the article.
I wrote three times to John and spoke with him on the phone twice. I told him that I was sure he thought he had reason to make his claim but that he did not give any proof for it in his article. I pointed out to him the several places where St.Thomas spoke on justification and I showed that he was clearly Catholic. In fact, he specifically excluded the idea of external imputation of righteousness. John replied that he was insulted that I would question his veracity and that he was under no obligation to provide me with any citations from Thomas. I should just take his word for it. He then proceeded to tell me that I was not a real "catholic" but that he WAS a true catholic because he believed in the Reformation. I realized at that point that he was irrational and in open defiance of God and right reason. He died shortly thereafter and I have always been concerned for the state of his soul.
Sproul's recent trashy output has disappointed me. He keeps asserting the truth of the Reformation systems but does not engage the texts honestly. He totally ignores Romans 3:29-31 which demolishes his position. I fear for his soul as well. He is too gleeful and full of himself when talking about how anyone who disagrees with him is non-elect.
This is a little like saying, "I need absolute knowledge of how my computer works before it actually works." The certainty of the canon doesn't detract from the infallibility of the Bible.
Listen to yourself. You are babbling incoherently. The claims that are made for the Bible are supernatural claims. You are not saying that the Bible is reasonably reliable. You are claiming it is the sole rule of faith. If there is any doubt as to its content, then you cannot make such a claim. When you allege that you are not sure which part of the Bible are inspired but you assume that they all are, you are acting irrationally. Either you have reasons to believe the Bible is supernaturally inerrant or you don't. If there is any doubt, then you are committing idolatry when you call it the word of God.
Rome teaches that the Pope is infallible when he teaches ex cathedra, and I'm sure you'd agree with that.
No. Jesus does. Matt 10:9, 16:16-20, 18:18.
Does one need an infallible list of ex cathedra teachings before one can claim the Pope is infallible?
Yes. That is what we have with scripture and tradition. There is an unbroken witness to Papal authority that goes back to the apostles. The prot cults have no such evidences.
Could the Jew in Jesus' day have infallible knowledge of the canon?
The evidence says that the Jews did not have a closed canon at the time of Christ. It was partially formed. The authority to teach came from the HIgh Priest as John's Gospel showed. When the Synagogue denied Jesus, that power passed to St. Peter.
The Canon was first *infallibly* defined in April 1546 at Trent.
That is a lie. The Canon was fixed in the 4th Century when Pope St. Damasus blessed the findings of the Council of Rome in 382. This was reaffirmed in his letter on the Canon to the Bishops in Asia Minor in 405. In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope. In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils. In 1483, Pope Eugenius wrote the Letter to the Jacobites as the closing act of the Council of Florence and there he affirmed the Canon of Hippo. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Albertus Magnus and all of the major fathers of the Middle Ages affirmed the Canon of Hippo. Sorry, fella. You are wrong.
Now, how about responding to my other letters? You are pulling a typical John Gerstner by changing the subject. Let's deal with the real issue. JBFA is explicitly denied by Scripture.
You've addressed many of the issues in my email to John about the "tangentials." Of course, you understand that my email to John was never meant to be an exhaustive proof for every item I put in there. Surely you didn't miss the point of the email?
You presented no proof for anything at all. You merely repeated the same tired out-of-context one-liners that prots have used for centuries to justify their errors. As I demonstrated, there is no foundation for the most basic of all prot positions -- JBFA -- and in fact this central tenet of the prot religion openly contradicts the clear, unambiguous words of the Bible.
John pointed to issues that cause division between Protestants. I don't dispute there are disagreements among Protestants on a variety of issues. I gave a quick summary of where I stood on each issue (not an exhaustive proof, as I said earlier) and left it at that.
By doing so you arrogated to yourself the right to discern the eternal verities. You have no authority to do so. All of your "positions" are man-made and are not revealed from God. St. Peter in his second Papal encyclical wrote about the teaching authority of the Church:
2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 2Pe 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 2Pe 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The Protestant religions are founded on the premise of "private interpretation" of the Bible. Once again, we find that prot doctrine contradict the very words of Scripture itself.
Historic Christianity insists that sound doctrine is only discerned by men who have received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (1Ti 4:14, 2Ti 1:6-7). This was promised to the Church by Christ (Matt 10:20, Matt 16:16-20, Matt 18:18, Luke 10:16, John 14:17, John15:26, John16:13). We caths therefore are in line with the plain words of Scripture while the prot cults are not.
Then I pointed to a number of issues within the Roman Catholic Church that cause division. You see, it is a flawed argument to point to the divisions in Protestant Churches as if that undermined sola scriptura. Why is it a flawed argument?
You nave been deceived. Among the Protestant cults there are a variety of practices including abortion, contraception, divorce with remarriage, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, baptism of adults, baptism of infants, no baptism at all, paedocommunion, adult only communion and many other variants. The advocates of these various positions all claim biblical warrant for what they do. In debating these issues, prots have no way of settling disputes because no one among them speaks with authority. Consequently, "sola scriptura" settles nothing.
In Catholicism, we have a teaching authority who speaks definitively. When the Magisterium settles a dispute, it is infallible and all are obliged to submit. There are no issue of division among Catholics. There are some bad Catholics who are committing sins of irreligion but they have no authority to dissent and their opinion doesn't count.
Because there are divisions among Roman Catholics, too. If the divisions among Protestants disprove sola Scriptura, then certainly the divisions among Roman Catholics disprove the Magisterium, correct?
There are no divisions among Catholics. REAL Catholics follow the Magisterium and remain in communion and submission to the Holy See. There are disobedient Catholics which proves nothing. Right is right if nobody is right. Wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. If we followed you logic the existence of criminals would prove that there were no laws or legal authorities.
I'll repost the "tangential" issues. Mr. Sippo, for each of these issues, would you please tell me whether or not it is tangential, and how you can authoritatively tell me that it is tangential?
My opinion is not important. The teaching of the Magisterium is what counts. In some matters there has been no definition up to this time and a certain degree of leeway is allowed. Catholicism unlike the various prot cults does not demand rigid adherence to narrow theological positions in every matter. There are only certain matters which are no longer open to speculation
Whose view of salvation should you follow? Augustine's? Scotus? Molina? or Aquinas? All of these 4 men held different views of salvation, which is the one to follow? Is this tangential, and how do you know authoritatively?
None of them. I follow the Council of Trent and subsequent definitions such as the bull Unigenitus. None of the positions of these theologians is official Catholic doctrine. Certain speculations of St. Augustine were curtailed by the Second Council of Orange and Trent notes this. Molina's and Scotus's views are a minority among Catholic theologians but both are compatible with Trent. St. Thomas' views are substantially those of St. Augustine and are the closest to those of Trent. All of these men were Catholics in good standing and their opinions are compatible with defined teaching within due limits related to subsequent Magisterial pronouncements. It is necessary for salvation to submit to Trent and subsequent Magisterial teaching on this matter. No one is obliged to accept the opinions of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Molinos, Bl. John Duns Scotus.
What about evolution? The Catholic church teaches that one can believe either. Is this tangential? How do you know authoritatively?
The Popes have consistently taught that in matters of origins, Catholics are obliged to accept the special creation of the human soul directly by God and the biological descent of the human race from a single original pair of humans (Adam and Eve). This was stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical 'Humani Generis' in 1949 and repeated by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II several times. Other than that, Catholics are fee to speculate in these matters within due limits.
Was there a literal Adam and Eve? Catholics disagree on this. Is this tangential? How do you know authoritatively?
No REAL Catholic disagrees on this. Anyone who denies the existence of a real Adam and is a heretic.
How about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ("no salvation outside the church")? Should the Catholic follow the view of Vatican II (all people of all religions can be saved) or every document before Vatican II (all people of any non-Catholic religion--including Protestants--are eternally condemned heretics). Is this a tangential issue? How do you know authoritatively?
You have apparently never read Lumen Gentium 14-16. It is the definitive Magisterial teaching on this matter:
Lumen Gentium Chapter 2
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*) Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
(12) Cfr. S. Augustinus, Bapt. c. Donat. V, 28, 39; PL 43, 197: Certe manifestum est, id quod dicitur, in Ecdesia intus et foris, in corde, non in corpore cogitandum. Cfr. ib., III, 19, 26: col. 152; V, 18, 24: col. 189; In Io. Tr. 61, 2: PL 35, 1800, et alibi saepe. (13) Cfr. Lc. 12, 48: Omni autem, cui multum datum est, multum quaeretur ab eo. Cfr. etiam Mt. 5, 19-20; 7, 21-22; 25 41-46; Iac., 2, 14. (14) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Apost. Praeclara gratulationis, 20 iun. 1894; AAS 26 (1893-94) p. 707. (15) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896: ASS 28 (1895-96) p. 738. Epist. Encycl. Caritatis studium, 25 iul. 1898: ASS 31 (1898-99) p. 11. Pius XII, Nuntius radioph. Nell'alba, 24 dec. 1941: AAS 34 (1942) p. 21. (16) Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Rerum Orientalium, 8 sept. 1928: AAS 20 (1928) p. 287. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl Orientalis Ecclesiae, 9 apr. 1944: AAS 36 (1944) p. 137 (17) Cfr. Inst. S.S.C.S. Officii 20 dec. 1949: AAS 42 (1950) p.142. (18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1. (19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72. (20) Cfr. Eusebius Caes., Praeparatio Evangelica, 1, 1: PG 2128 AB.
124 Cf. Mk 16, 16; Jn. 3, 5. 125 Cf. Rom. 9, 4-5 126 Cf. Rom. 1 l, 28-29. 127 Cf. Acts 17,25-28. 128 Cf. 1 Tim. 2, 4. 129 Cf Rom. 1, 21, 25. 130 Mk. 16, 16.
What about Vatican II? Was it infallible? Traditionalist Catholics claim that it wasn't and contradicts the earlier teachings of Rome. Tangential? How do you know authoritatively?
The Second Vatican Council involved 2500 bishops including the Pope over a period of 4 years. It made several pronouncements on doctrinal matters which were definitive, though it did not proclaim any dogmas. Its teachings have been reaffirmed again and again by the reigning Popes ever since. It represents official Magisterial teaching.
Once again you bring up dissent. Who cares? The dissenters are in rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church and their opinion is of no importance.
What about divine revelation? Is it found partly in Scripture and Partly in Tradition (partim-partim)?
The Constitution Dei Verbum from VCII answered that question:
Dei Verbum, Chapter 2
9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7) But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
6. cf. Council of Trent, session IV, loc. cit.: Denzinger 783 (1501). 7. cf. Pius XII, apostolic constitution, "Munificentissimus Deus," Nov. 1, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) p. 756; Collected Writings of St. Cyprian, Letter 66, 8: Hartel, III, B, p. 733: "The Church [is] people united with the priest and the pastor together with his flock." 8. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 3 "On Faith:" Denzinger 1792 (3011). 9. cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Humani Generis," Aug. 12, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) pp. 568-69: Denzinger 2314 (3886).
Or can all divine revelation be found in Scripture (material sufficiency)?
You do not understand what material sufficiency means. Material sufficiency of the Scriptures means that all the truths of the faith are compatible with the Scriptures even though they may not be explicitly taught therein.
The Protestant error of 'sola scriptura' teaches that the Scriptures are FORMALLY sufficient to provide the rule of faith for the Church and perspicuous enough so that anyone can clearly understand what God has revealed in the Bible. The fact that Baptists deny original sin and Calvinist teach it with a vengeance proves that 'sola scriptura' is nonsense. But even more important (and totally ignored by prots) is the question of the canon of the Bible. If the Bible is the 'sole rule of faith', where does it provide a definitive list of the OT and NT books? It doesn't! The canon was a product of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church acting in the 4th and 5th Centuries. The definitive teaching on this came from the Papal approval in 418 AD of the Canons of the Council of Hippo promulgated in 397 AD and reaffirmed in the subsequent series of local councils in North Africa thereafter. This was further confirmed by the Council of Nicea II in 787 AD. In this matter prots are hypocrites who are living on borrowed capital.
Can one follow the synods of Hippo and Carthage (which listed the books of the Canon) over Trent? Which council got the OT correct? Is this tangential?
I got news for you. Hippo and the subsequent Cathaginian Councils all affirmed the Canon that Trent later affirmed.
Of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, should we trust the Byzantine text-type (like Bob Sungenis) or the Eclectic text type (like nearly every other Catholic apologist)? Is this a tangential issue?
There is no definitive Greek text of the NT. There are several families of texts. The 4th Century Codices (Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus) are the oldest and most complete sets, but they do not agree with each other and are not critical texts. The Byzantine text family is derived from a 10th century Byzantine liturgical text and is full of glosses and additions (See the book "The Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture" by Bart Ehrman) and is not a reliable representative of the earliest texts. Mr. Sungenis' position is that of a conservative Protestant defending the Textus Receptus (and thus the KJV against its detractors. In this matter, his opinion is not even remotely Catholic.
The OFFICIAL Bible of the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate the modern editions of which have been amended with an eye to the Eclelctic text, not the Textus Receptus. As any competent biblical scholar will tell you, there is no major difference among the various ancient texts which has any bearing on doctrinal matters. Some of the common interpretations of the Latin Vulgate in the Middle Ages were done without proper reference to the original Greek language of the NT but that has been corrected since Trent.
The Catholic Church takes no stand on the "Correct" Greek text of the NT. Neither does it take a stand on the correct text of the OT.
Is Christ's presence in the Eucharist a "real" bodily presence, or a sacramental presence? Is this a tangential issue? How do you know authoritatively?
This matter was dealt with in Lateran IV and Trent. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is BOTH substantial (ie, bodily) and sacramental. Paul VI also affirmed transfinalization and transsignification in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei. The Eucharist is a powerful symbol which has many levels of meaning, but all of them are grounded in the substantial presence. These are dogmas of the Church and anyone who denies them can be formally excommunicated as a heretic.
Has the modern Roman Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation "always been held from the beginning" as Trent claims, or is this a development thing (like Newman claims)? Tangential? How do you know authoritatively?
Trent is infallible. There is no question here. Newman when he was a glic who was only an invalidly ordained scholar with no authority to teach. When it comes to a show down between the opinions of mere men and the Magisterium of the Church under the Superintendence of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit wins hands down.
Can one use critical methods in Bible interpretation like form criticism and redaction criticism, or did Pius X condemn these methods in his Pascendi Dominici Gregis? Is this a tangential issue? How do you know authoritatively?
Pius X did not condemn Biblical Scholarship. He condemned secularist skepticism masquerading as scholarship. The various Papal Encyclicals on the Bible reaffirmed the Church's faith in the inerrancy of Scripture along with her openness to using modern critical tools WITHIN DUE LIMITS. The most helpful encyclical is on this is Divinu Afflante Spiritu by Pius XII.
Is the novus ordo mass binding and infallible? Or is it just an option among others? Is the Latin mass still valid, or is it just an accommodation to those who don't want to change with the modern times? Is this a tangential issue? How do you know authoritatively?
These questions are confused and make no sense. There Revised Missal of Pope Paul VI is a valid rite and it is binding on all Catholics to accept it as the official liturgy of the Church. The term "Novus Ordo" is incorrect. This rite is over 30 years old and is hardly new. Infallibility only applies to the doctrinal content of the rite. I am not sure how you are using the term here. Which "Latin Mass" are you talking about? There is a Latin text of the Revised Missal which is the official liturgy of the Church in Rome. I think you are referring to the Missal of Pius V commonly called the Tridentine Missal. There never was any question of its VALIDITY. The missal was suppressed and so it is not LICIT to use this form of the Mass without special permission.
The Mass is the Mass no matter what form you use. Whether we are talking about the Tridentine Mass, the Pauline Mass, the Ambrosan, the Benedictine, or any of the Eastern Rite forms, or defunct forms such as the Sarum, Gallican, or York usages, it is the same sacramental act: the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross modeled after the Last Supper. Some people prefer one form over another, but the essence is the same no matter which Eucharistic liturgy you attend. A REAL Catholic knows this and acts accordingly.
You apparently do not understand the difference between doctrine and discipline. The Pope and the bishops in union with him have given us clear guidance on the matters of the liturgy. There is no question what we ought to do. Infallibility does not technically apply to disciplinary matters but it is till a serious mater to defy papal authority.
I have shown that all of these issues you brought up do not lead to confusion or dissention. In Catholicism, we exercise the freedom of the sons and daughters of God. We are not bound to narrow doctrinal definitions in all matters as in the prot religions. Nevertheless, there is clear guidance on what is and is not acceptable in theology if people will take heed of what the Magisterium teaches.
In the Protestant religions, men strive by their own efforts to discern the eternal verities using alleged "scholarship" which is nothing more than proof texting for preconceived ideas that come from the vaunted systematic theologies of the Reformers. Protestants as a whole deny that there is any divine guidance in the church that is not tied to human learning and effort. That is why you keep acting as if the presence of dissenters in the Church proves that there is no clear authority. You value humanistic disciplines over the Holy Spirit and the promises of Jesus.
Your position was described quite well by the author of Hebrews:
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with instruction about baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. Hbr 6:8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. (Hebrews 6:1-8)
I will pray for your repentance and return to the Church.
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate