Mark Bonocore addresses a number of Protestant objections in his rebuttals. While Mark offers the standard Catholic defenses in some responses, he also provides us a glimpse into a few "new" goodies which many Catholics have not yet heard. Needless to say, Mr. Cloud gets an education on what Catholics believe and why. Mr. Cloud's challenges are in red.
Mr. Cloud clearly holds to the faulty, 16th Century, man-made tradition of sola Scriptura ("Bible alone"), and so assumes that everything essential to Christian orthodoxy is contained within the pages of the Scriptures themselves. However, the Scriptures themselves, of course, never make that claim, nor did any orthodox Christian, for at least the first 1,500 years of Church history. Rather, both Scripture itself (2 Thes. 2:15, 1 Corinth 11:2, etc.) and the universal witness of First Millennium Christianity clearly witness to the fact that the Apostles left the Church binding oral Traditions which are of equal value with the Apostolic Traditions contained in the pages of Scripture.
Secondly, Mr. Cloud needs to deal with the fact that essential Christian doctrines (doctrines that he himself apparently believes in) are found nowhere in the Bible. For example, where does the Bible use the word "Trinity"? And, indeed, where does the Bible define the Blessed Trinity as "One God in three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial Divine Persons" --the orthodox Christian belief? Nowhere. That dogmatic formula was given to us by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople I (A.D. 381), based upon the oral Traditions left to the bishops by the Apostles. Likewise, where does the Bible mention or define the Hypostatic Union of Christ? By this, I refer to His being both full-God and fully-man, as opposed to "half-God and half-man," or "3/4ths God and 1/4th man," or "God disguised as man," or "once God and then only a man," etc.? Where does the Bible present the orthodox Christian doctrine that Jesus is one Divine Person (Who existed from all eternity) with two natures --a Divine nature (which He possessed from all eternity) and a human nature (which He acquired at the moment of His Incarnation)? Where does the Bible directly spell out this essential Christian belief? Answer: It doesn't. Rather, this essential Christian doctrine was dogmatically defined at the Catholic Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which, again, drew upon the Apostolic oral Traditions of the Church. Also, for that matter, where does the Bible ever use the word "Bible"? If the Bible is to be our only focus, why doesn't the Bible itself tell us about the Bible? Why doesn't it give us a Divinely-inspired list of which books belong in the Bible (the correct Biblical canon) and which books do not? Why doesn't it tell us the story of how the inspired books came about (e.g. how Matthew was inspired to write his Gospel ...or even relate that Matthew wrote a Gospel at all)?!! Yet, Mr. Cloud, like all Protestants, takes all this for granted --not recognizing the fact that these three essential Christian doctrines (the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ, and the Bible ...others could be mentioned too) come down to us, NOT in the pages of inspired Scripture, but via the Spirit-guided Sacred Apostolic oral Tradition of the Catholic Church ...without which, Mr. Cloud would simply not have them. Ergo, Mr. Cloud, like all true Christians (assuming that he is a true Christian --that His Christology is orthodox) is as much dependent on Apostolic Tradition (or at least certain elements of it) as any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox is. The only difference is that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox admit that they are obliged to Sacred oral Tradition of the Apostles, whereas Mr. Cloud, and all Protestants like him, denies the obvious and naively argues that his faith is based on Scripture alone. Think again, Mr. Cloud. And, if you still disagree, please try to answer the questions issued above.
Thirdly, as we will see in my following responses, Mr. Cloud, along with many Protestants like him, haa a very flawed understanding of what Catholics actually believe and unreasonably denies certain Catholic terms or concepts because he does not see them spelled out directly in the Bible itself --that is, within a 1st Century context. This, of course, is an anachronistic error, and it reveals Mr. Cloud's very poor grasp of both Catholicism and of Church history in general.
But, with these three important points made, let me now address Mr. Cloud's supposedly "challenging" questions:
For starters, Mr. Cloud asks ...
Where in the Bible do we find Peter assuming and exercising the role of a Catholic pope?
Here, Mr. Cloud fails to define what he means by "exercising the role of a Catholic pope." Does he mean "wearing flowing robes and a pointy hat"? Does he mean "exercising political authority over medieval kings"? What is he referring to? Clearly, Peter himself never exercised his Papacy in the style that later, medieval Popes did, and this was because, in the early days, the Church was an illegal, underground society, persecuted by both the Jewish establishment and the imperial Roman government. The Church obviously possessed no secular or political power during Peter's lifetime, and so we should not be surprised that Peter's successors acted, or were obliged to act, in ways that we cannot apply to 1st Century Christian history. For, after A.D. 476 (when the Western Roman Empire --that is, civilization itself --fell apart), the Popes of Rome, given that they were the only one's in the position to do it, were forced to take on additional, secular responsibilities for holding civilization together ---something Peter and his earlier successors never had to do, and something which is simply not essential to the office of the Papacy as Jesus created it in Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, and John 21:15-19, etc. Rather, in creating the Papacy, what Jesus merely established was a special ministry to lead the entire Church and to preserve the Church in unity and orthodoxy. That is all that the Papacy essentially is. And, given THAT definition of the Papacy (which is the true, Catholic definition), we very much see Peter "exercising the role of a Catholic Pope." For example, ...
What does one call this if not the Papacy (properly defined)? Clearly, Peter possessed the ultimate authority to "bind and loosen" in the early Church.
Where does the Bible say the early churches treated Peter in a papal fashion?
Here, again, Mr. Cloud does not define his terms. What in the world does he mean by "Papal fashion"? Is he referring to customs like kissing the Pope's ring or kneeling to receive a blessing from the Pope, etc.? Well, as if it even needs to be said, those customs developed much later, when signs of respect given to any authoritative figure in the Roman and/or Gothic world (e.g. kissing a ring of office; kneeling, etc.) were directed toward the Papacy as well. We should not expect to see the same cultural expressions of respect given to a Jewish Apostle in the 1st Century. However, with that said, we do see Peter treated with special respect. For example, as I already mentioned above, in Acts 5:15, the sick of Jerusalem are brought out and placed on the ground so that Peter's shadow might pass over them as he walks by. That doesn't sound like just a regular guy, does it? Also, the other Apostles are not treated this way. Likewise, in Gal 1:18, Paul says how he spent fifteen days "conferring" with Kephas (Peter); and the Greek word here ("historesai") means "to ask of a higher authority" --the same word which the pagan Greeks used when they consulted the Oracle of Delphi and other "divine" authorities. If Paul was merely meeting with an equal, he would have used the word "heiden." Likewise, in Acts 15:12, after Peter gives the definitive teaching at the Council, it says that everyone "fell silent" (meaning that they remained silent: the past-tense aorist "esigese" in Greek, not "sigesai," as used later in v. 13), and there is no more room for debate after Peter had spoken. And we could cite other examples as well.
However, the real problem here is that Mr. Cloud is taking his traditional, Protestant notions about a domineering, medieval-style Papacy (the "boogie-man" of Protestant tradition) and trying to apply that image to how Peter and his earliest successors operated in the first few centuries of the Church. Based on this, Mr. Cloud naturally (though unwisely) concludes that there was no early Papacy because we do not see Peter or the earliest Pope's behaving like the medieval "enemy" of the Protestant "revolution." However, what Mr. Cloud fails to realize here is that, after the days of Constantine, when frequently heretical Roman/Byzantine, Emperors tried to usurp headship over the Church, thereby blending world politics with Christian doctrine, and forcing the Church to define itself and to operate in worldly terms, the Popes of Rome were forced to change their leadership style from the pious and humble instructions of Jesus (i.e., "He who would be the first among you must become the SERVANT of all") to the more secular, authoritative style of Papacy that Mr. Cloud's Protestant ancestors encountered. And it was most necessary for the Popes to do this; for if they had not gone toe-to-toe with heretical Byzantine emperors, directly invoking their full authority as successors of Peter, and so acting like "emperors" themselves, the Church would have been overcome by heresy on numerous occasions. I will be happy to relate the specific history on that if Mr. Cloud requires.
However, before the late 300's / early 400's --that is, before the Church got involved in earthly politics, but was still an illegal, underground society, the earliest Popes (Peter included) did not advertise their authority in worldly ways, but typically exercised their authority in the humble and pious ways that Jesus initially instructed (see 1 Peter 5:1-4), because they could afford to do that. It was only in extreme cases (as when they needed to excommunicate someone) that Peter and the other early Popes put their foot down, and let their authority be seen. And this is why it is very difficult for Protestants to see a "Pope" in early Christianity --not because they didn't exist (they clearly did), but because they did not typically exercise their authority in the style that Protestants expect of a Pope.
Where does the Bible say that one man is the head of all churches?
"All the churches"??? Jesus only established one Church / one Flock; and over this one Flock, He appointed Peter to be the ultimate, earthly shepherd (John 21:15-19), with the final authority to maintain this one Flock in unity (Luke 22:31-32) and orthodoxy (Matt 16:18-19). That's what the Papacy is. Now, as the Church spread into the world, it is true that various city-churches were established, each with its own bishop, who was the ultimate authority within that specific city-church. Yet, a city-church was only one part of the larger, universal ("Catholic" ...which means "universal") Church; and when a controversy arose that could not be decided with the city-church, it was referred to the other, neighboring city-churches; and when the neighboring city-churches could not agree, the ancient Christians always sent an appeal to Petrine Rome, which was the final court of appeal in the ancient Church. When Rome spoke officially, the matter was settled. History is very clear about this, and we can present countless examples to illustrate how this was the case.
What's more, Mr. Cloud is operating under yet another misconception when he assumes that the Pope is believed to be "the head of all the churches." That's not what Catholics believe. Rather, we believe that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome (which is all he really is), is the head of the city-church of Rome; and that the city-church of Rome is the leading city-church among all the other Catholic city-churches. It's in this sense that the Pope is the visible Head of the Catholic Church. We obviously do not believe that the Pope of Rome is the head of the Archdiocese of New York. Rather, New York has its own bishop, and he is the head of the New York city-church. So, Mr. Cloud needs to stop painting with such a "broad brush" and understand the particulars of Catholic ecclesiology. He is clearly sorely lacking in this area.
Where does Bible say God established a special priesthood for the churches that is separate from the priesthood of the believers?
In several places, Mr. Cloud. First of all, at the Last Supper, in which Jesus instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist (see 1 Corinth 10:16-22, which clearly illustrates that the Eucharist --the Lord's Supper --is a Sacrifice: the one Sacrifice of the Cross made present in our midst), Jesus only command the Apostles to "do this in memory of me" --a reference to the offering of a Sacrifice (the Greek "anamnesis" referring to sacrifices, not merely to memorials --see: Heb 13:3, Numbers 10:10, etc.). This is a priestly commission. Likewise, in Romans 15:15-16, Paul describes his ministry with the words ...
"But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."
Clearly, Paul's ministry was not the same as that of the average Christian (the common priesthood of the laity). But, he describes his ministry as a special PRIESTLY ministry.
What Mr. Cloud fails to realize is that the our English word "priest" comes from the Greek word "presbyter" (see Acts 14:23), frequently translated as "elder" in Protestant Bibles. The etymology works like this:
"Presbuteros" (Greek) ---- "Presbyter" (Latin) --- "Prete" (Italian) ---- "Pretre" (French) ---- "Proest" (Old / Middle English) ----- "Priest" (Modern English).
So, in English, when we speak of a "Catholic priest," we are referring to the presbyters who were ordained by the Apostles (Acts 14:23, etc.). These presbyters were the elders/seniors/FATHERS of the Christian communities (which is why we call priests "father" today); and, as in the Jewish tradition (especially before the imposition of the Levitical priesthood in Exodus), the father of the family or tribe was always the one who offered sacrifices on behalf of the family or tribe (e.g. Noah in Gen 8:20, Abraham in Gen 15:9-10 & Gen 22:2, etc., Jacob in Gen 35:1--6, etc.). In other words, he was the family priest! This priestly office was only taken away from the head of each family by Moses after the rebellion of the Golden Calf, when the priesthood was limited to the Levites alone. But, in Christ, this limitation of the Law is removed, and now any Christian man, no matter what his ethnic or tribal background, can serve as the Lord's priest over the family that is the Church --the "Household of God" (1 Tim 3:15; Ephesians 2:19-20).
What's more, if Mr. Cloud cares to turn to Revelation 5, there we are presented with 24 heavenly presbyters, who are the Twelve Apostles and the Twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve patriarchal heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel --all of whom offered sacrifices on behalf of their respective tribes. And, if Mr. Cloud would be good enough to examine Revelation 5:8, there we read how ...
"...and the twenty-four presbyters fell down before the Lamb. Each of the presbyters held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, WHICH ARE THE PRAYERS OF THE HOLY ONES."
Now, as anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows, offering a bowl of incense is a PRIESTLY function. In fact, in Numbers 16:16-35, Korah and his associates are destroyed by God for doing this very thing --that is, for pretending to be priests, when they were not. What's more, here in Revelation 5, it clearly says that the bowls of incense are the prayers of the holy ones (that is, of average Christians), which are being offered to the Lamb by the presbyters --that is, by priests. Ergo, these presbyters clearly hold an office which is distinct from that of the common priesthood of the laity, given that they serve as intermediaries between God and the laity, offering the prayers of the laity to God in a special, ministerial capacity. Thus, right here in Scripture, we see the ministerial priesthood clearly displayed.
Where does the Bible describe the office of such priests in the early churches?
The Bible describes the office of presbyters, Mr. Cloud (see: Acts 14:23, 1 Tim 5:17-22, etc.). These were the priests. And, we know what their office and their specific duties consisted of through historical accounts and Church oral Tradition. Their duties are not spelled out in the pages of Scripture itself. But, if you think otherwise --that is, if you think that a presbyter was not a priest, then please show me where the Bible describes the specific duties of these "non-priestly presbyters." The Bible does not describe the specific duties of the presbyters at all. One needs to look to ancient oral Tradition to find that. And, when we do this (for example, when we look at the writings of the earliest Church fathers), we find the Catholic Faith. For example, writing no later than 107 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostles, says ...
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyters as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints (i.e, one of the presbyters).. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ignatius to the Smyrneans).
and also ...
"Take care, then, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ --they are with the bishop. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup in the union of His Blood; ONE ALTAR (i.e., an "altar" is a place of Sacrifice), as there is one bishop WITH THE PRESBYTERS, and my fellow servants, the deacons."
Ergo, the presbyters (priests) served at the altar and celebrated the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Likewise, about 10 years earlier, we have the witness of Clement of Rome --another disciple of the Apostles (and the man mentioned by St. Paul in Phil 4:3). And, writing about A.D. 90, Clement writes:
"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 17-34), but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their Sacrifices at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. ....For to the high PRIEST (e.g. the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the PRIESTS (e.g. the presbyters/priests) the proper place has been appointed, and on the LEVITES (e.g. the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. ......Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." (1 Clement to the Corinthians).
Where does the Bible say that New Testament priests are ordained after the order of Melchizedek?
Use common sense, Mr. Cloud. The Book of Hebrews says that Jesus is our HIGH Priest and that He belongs to the ORDER of Melchizedek --an order which offered the sacrifice of Bread and Wine (Genesis 14:18 ). Jesus instituted a like (but far greater) Sacrifice at the Last Supper, and He commissioned His Apostles to do the same. If Jesus is our HIGH Priest, then there must be LESSER priests under Him (see, again, Rev 5:8 ); and if the order of Melchizedek offered Sacrifice in the form of Bread and Wine, then all who are commissioned to offer that Sacrifice are of the same order as Melchizedek and the Lord, being lesser priests under Jesus' High Priesthood.
Where in the Bible do we find a requirement that pastors be celibate?
Here, again, Mr. Cloud exhibits an ignorance of Catholic doctrine. The requirement of priestly celibacy is not an absolute requirement of Catholic doctrine. Rather, it is a discipline, and so a current norm in the Church. However, both in ancient times and still to this day, the Catholic Church had and has priests who are married men. These are found in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (where the discipline of priestly celibacy is not the norm) and within the ranks of the Roman Rite priesthood, insofar as we have numerous priests who were once married Anglican or Lutheran ministers, and who were permitted, by special dispensation, to receive Holy Orders and serve as priests in the Catholic Church. So, while priestly celibacy is preferred (as a good and superior discipline), it is by no means a dogmatic mandate in Catholicism.
However, the Bible does clearly teach that celibacy is superior to married life when it comes to Church service. For example, in 1 Corinth 7:32ff says ...
"I should l like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But, a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. ...I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction."
Likewise, the Catholics Church (as the norm) only ordains men who are committed to celibacy to the priesthood because, as St. Paul says, this is most appropriate and allows adherence to the Lord without worldly distractions. And the Lord Himself recommends the same in Matt 19:12.
So, given that all of this is in the Bible, why are there barely any Protestant pastors who follow this instruction??? Doesn't it mean that most Protestant pastors ARE "distracted" and caught up in worldly concerns? Clearly, this was not Christ's desire for His Church. So, why don't Protestants follow the Biblical principal?
Where does the Bible say the apostles passed on their authority through a succession?
In lots of places. The Bible speaks of the passing on of authority through the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 5:22, etc.), which is an Old Testament custom for passing on of authority. Likewise, in 2 Tim 2:2, Paul tells Timothy ...
"And what you have heard from me, ENTRUST TO FAITHFUL MEN, who will be able to teach OTHERS AS WELL."
That is Apostolic succession, Mr. Cloud. However, once again, Mr. Cloud is lacking in understanding in regard to what Apostolic Succession actually is and what Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) believe it to be. For, in his next question, he writes ....
Where does the Bible give standards for apostolic succession? There are standards for pastors and deacons, but where are the standards for an ongoing apostleship?
I hate to break it to you, Mr. Cloud, but neither the Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in "an ongoing apostleship." Our Catholics and Eastern Orthodox bishops are not Apostles themselves. An Apostle is someone who was sent personally by Christ to preach the Gospel and to be a first-hand witness of Him. Our modern bishops do not claim to be this. Also, an Apostle was empowered to impose new and binding revelation on the Church. Again, our modern bishops do not claim this ability, since, as both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe, all binding revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. So, our bishops do not succeed to the full ministry of the Apostles. That's not what Apostolic succession means. Rather, what it means is that our bishops succeed to the episcopal dimension of the Apostolic ministry. In other words, given that the Apostles functioned as bishops/presbyters (1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 John 1, 3 John 1, etc.), our modern bishops succeed to that particular dimension of the Apostles' ministries --becoming bishops in the place of the Apostles after the Apostles died (e.g. 2 Tim 2:2). In this capacity, they succeed to the full authority of the Apostles WHEN the Apostles acted as bishops (see: Acts 15:22-29 ...esp. v. 28 ); but they are not Apostles themselves, nor can they impose new revelation on the Church. Rather, all they can do is authoritatively interpret (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) what the Apostles left to us, in the forms of both Scripture and oral Tradition.
Where does the Bible describe nuns in the early churches?
Here, again, Mr. Cloud is playing with anachronisms. The Catholic Church did not have formal nuns or monks (nuns are simply female monks) until the rise of monasticism in the late 3rd Century. However, the principals behind monasticism are already there in the pages of Scripture, insofar that Scripture calls for and recommends certain people to live lives of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In terms of women specifically, it is clear that certain 1st Century Christian women had taken vows of celibacy and so lived lives of service in the Church comparable to modern Catholic nuns (see: 1 Corinth 7:8, 1 Corinth 7:34, 1 Corinth 7:39-40, 1 Tim 5:9-12, etc.). Indeed, 1 Tim 5:9-12 clearly speaks about how certain older, celibate widows were "enrolled" --a reference to some kind of official Church service, which is, again, comparable to that of modern nuns. I'm am greatly surprised that Mr. Cloud would overlook all this. I would also ask him to account for the fact that almost none (if any) Protestant women take vows of celibacy today. But, why don't they, if it's there in the Bible?
Where in the Bible do we find anyone praying to Mary or to any other person other than God?
This is a loaded question, insofar that Mr. Cloud wishes to impose a certain meaning on the word "prayer." However, when Catholics "pray" to Mary or to anyone else in Heaven, we are not "praying" in the Biblical sense ---that is, we are not offering "latria" (worshipping prayer) to Mary or another saint or angel, but rather "dulia" (mere veneration / respect) for Mary and/or another saint or angel; and, in doing this, we are not saying that Mary, or any other saint, or angel, has the direct power to help us on their own. Rather, our dulia prayer is offered with the understanding that Mary, or some other saint, or angel, will pray for us, and so gain what we ask for by their own merits with God. This is because, as James 5:16 tells us:
"The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful."
And, indeed, this is why Protestant Christians ask other Protestant Christians on earth to pray for them. Ah! But, is the unity of the Church limited to the Church on earth? Not according to the Bible. According to the Bible, in Matt 16:18, the "gates of hades," that is the "gates of death," will not prevail against Christ's Church --that is, death itself has no power over the Church, or over its unity. What this means is that the Church here on earth and the Church in Heaven is the SAME Church --one Body in Christ, and undivided. Indeed, this is because those members of the Church who have experienced physical death are simply NOT DEAD (see: John 11:26, Phil 1:20), but are still alive in Christ and with Him. Ergo, if we can ask our fellow Christians in this life to pray for us, why can't we ask our fellow Christians in Heaven to do the same? Why can't we ask Mary or another saint to pray for us? And this, of course, is what Catholics do. But, if one denies that we are able to do this, then one denies clear Biblical teaching, since one implies that the Church and its unity of love IS overcome by death (contra Matt 16:18 ) and/or that Christians who have experienced physical death are truly dead and not with Christ at all (contra John 11:26, Phil 1:20, etc.). This is the choice that Mr. Cloud needs to make.
Where does the Bible call Mary the Mother of God?
It doesn't. That title was formally given to Mary by the Catholic Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) --the SAME Council that formally and infallibly defined the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ (already cited in my introduction above), which Mr. Cloud must believe in if he is orthodox in terms of his Protestant Christology. In other words, if Mr. Cloud denies that Mary is the Mother of God, then He denies that Jesus is God --that is, He denies that the Person Who Mary gave human birth to is indeed a Divine Person. Again, if that's what Mr. Cloud wishes to say, it's his choice. But, if that is his position, he simply may not call himself a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus is God --a Divine Person who acquired human hands, and human eyes, and a human heart, AND a human mother. Ergo, the hands of Jesus are the hands of God; the eyes of Jesus are the eyes of God; the heart of Jesus is the heart of God; and the mother of Jesus is the mother of God.
Where does the Bible say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven?
In those specific words? It doesn't. However, the Bible clearly does depict Mary as the Queen-Mother of the Messiah. For example, take a look at Revelation 12:1-3, where the woman (who, while she symbolizes both Israel and the Church, is clearly an image of Mary --the Mother of the Redeemer) wears a "crown of twelve stars" on her head. Why does she wear a crown unless she is a Queen? Also, why are there "twelve" stars, unless she is Queen of the Messianic Kingdom --the New Jerusalem: the Kingdom of Heaven.
Likewise, go look at Luke 1:26-33. Here, in verses 32 & 33, Mary is told how her Son will be given the THRONE of His FATHER David. Now, David was Mary's ancestor through his son Nathan (compare Luke 3:31 and 1 Chronicles 14:4). Ergo, Jesus is heir to the Kingdom THROUGH MARY --that is, through her ROYAL blood. Also, upon appearing to Mary, what does the angel Gabriel say in Luke 1:28? He says, "HAIL, Full of Grace." In other words, this angel, a SUPERIOR, HEAVENLY BEING, "hails" Mary as a Queen ...and, in this, he uses the very same Greek word ("chaire"), which the soldiers use to mock Jesus in John 19:3, etc., saying "Hail, KING of the Jews." This is why, so Luke 1:29 tells us, Mary was "greatly troubled and pondering WHAT SORT OF GREETING this might be." I'd be upset and confused too, if an angel "hailed" me as his superior! So, the Bible most certainly presents Mary as Queen of Heaven --that is, Queen Mother of the Messianic King of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Where in the Bible do we find the teaching that Mary is sinless?
We find that in Luke 1:28 too. What the angel specifically says in Greek is "Chaire, Kecharitomenae" --literally, "Hail, Full of Grace" or "Hail, Perfectly graced" - the Greek phrase meaning an abundance or overflowing of grace. Needless to say, if one is overflowing with grace (or perfectly graced), there is no room for sin. Likewise, in Genesis 3:15, which is the Protoevangelicum, or the first prophecy of the Messiah, the mother of the Redeemer is placed (with her Son) in opposition to Satan and the power of sin, not under His dominion --a New Adam and a New Eve to contrast the old Adam and the old Eve.
Where in the Bible do we find the baptism of an infant who is too young to believe in Christ?
Where do we find infant Baptism forbidden? Indeed, in Colossians 2:11-12, St. Paul calls Baptism our circumcision --the thing which brings us into the New Covenant in the same way the circumcision brought someone into the Old Covenant. Circumcision was administered on a baby eight days after birth, and so the baby was accepted into the Old Covenant at that early age. So, are you saying that the Old Covenant was greater than the New Covenant? Clearly, you must be saying just that, because the Old Covenant could include infants whereas, according to those who deny infant Baptism, the New Covenant apparently cannot accept infants. But, of course, we do not find this prohibition against infants anywhere in the New Testament. On the contrary, in Acts 2:38-39, the Apostle Peter publicly declares ...
"Repent and BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU, in the Name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For THE PROMISE is made to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all who are far off, whomever the Lord will call."
Clearly, there is no suggestion that infants will be excluded; but, on the contrary, children (presumably of all ages) are to be included in the Baptismal Covenant of Christ.
Also, in numerous places (e.g. Acts 16:33, 1 Corinth 1:16, etc.) the Bible speaks of entire households being Baptized together. This apparently included children, if not specifically infants.
Where does the Bible teach us that the church can identify dead people as saints and can then pray to them?
Where does the Bible say that the dead in Christ are dead? It doesn't. It says that the dead in Christ are ALIVE: John 11:26, Philippians 1:20, Matt 16:18. Death has no power over the Church or over any believing Christian. ...Nor does death interfere with a heavenly Christian's love and concern for his brothers and sisters who are still "running the race" on earth.
As for "identifying dead people as saints," here I presume Mr. Cloud is referring to the practice of canonization. However, needless to say, we base canonizations on what the person did while he or she were still alive. That is, the Church carefully investigates their life (interviewing every available witness), and if there is sufficient evidence that this person exhibited extraordinary heroic virtue, then the Church will formally declare that this person is a saint ---that is, it will hold this person up as an example for the rest of the Church to follow (which is what a canonized saint is, and what a canonized saint is for). After all, the Bible clearly tells us to "Test everything, and retain what it good." It also tells us to follow the example of holy people around us (e.g. Phil 4:9). And the Church has maintained this custom beautifully. Why haven't the Protestants?
Where does the Bible teach that a dead person can intercede for the living?
I already addressed this above. The dead in Christ are not dead. Rather, they are "with Jesus." (Phil 1:20). In Him and with Him, they can do all things. There is no limit to Christian love. It is sad that Mr. Cloud thinks otherwise.
Where does the Bible teach about purgatory?
1 Corinth 3:15 and Matt 12:32 both mention it, as does Luke 23:43. Think about it. What does Jesus say to the Good Thief? He says, "THIS DAY you will be with me in Paradise." Now, did He mean Heaven? Nope. And how do we know? Because, as Scripture tells us, Jesus did not go to Heaven THAT DAY. Rather, on THAT DAY (Friday, and for the next days after), Jesus was AMONG THE DEAD (1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6). And, indeed, even in John 20:17, on the day that He rose --Sunday (three days later), He tells Mary Magdalene to "Stop clinging to me, for I have NOT YET ascended to the Father." So, what about the "Paradise" promised to the Good Thief on Friday? Where is that? Answer: In Luke 23:43, Jesus is referring to the Jewish oral Tradition of the "Paradise of the Fathers" --also known as the "Bosom of Abraham" (see Luke 16:22), which was NOT Heaven, but a place of waiting and purgation --the place where all the "saved" people from the Old Testament awaited the coming of the Messiah, who alone could take them into the perfection and holiness of Heaven. Ergo, the Biblical basis for Purgatory is very clear to those who know how to read the Bible with an eye to Apostolic Tradition. It is very sad that Mr. Cloud lacks such an "Apostolic eye."
Where does the Bible teach that churches should use the bones of dead men in any type of religious manner?
Where does it teach that we should not? Here, Mr. Cloud is apparently referring to relics. And, in the Catholic tradition, of course, a relic can be made of several things --e.g. a piece of bone, a splinter of wood, a strip of cloth, etc. ---anything that came into contact with a person of exceptional holiness. Well, to see the Biblical basis for this, one need look no further than Acts 19:11, which tells us ...
"So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that, WHEN FACE CLOTHS OR APRONS THAT TOUCHED HIS SKIN were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them."
That's a relic, Mr. Cloud. In fact, the Eastern Church still claims to have pieces of these very cloths and aprons today.
As for the Church's use of the bones of martyrs and other saints, as I said above, Apostolic Christianity, in contrast to legalistic Judaism, always believed that death had no power over a true Christian --a saint. So, whereas the Jews feared death and had legal prescriptions against touching anything associated with a dead body, the early Christians proudly flaunted the freedom from the Law which they had in Christ Jesus, as well as professing their unquestionable belief in the Resurrection of the Dead, by venerating the earthly remains of their saints --saints who they knew were now with Jesus and who, through the presence of their holy bodies (and/or though objects that they touched), continued to work mighty deeds for the Church on earth. This is a perfectly Biblical principal, in full accord with the witness of the New Testament.
Where does the Bible teach that the churches used indulgences?
Matt 18:19 / Matt 18:18: "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosen in Heaven." An indulgence is a special measure imposed by the Church on a penitent sinner to make sure that the sinner is really sorry for his sin and to heal the temporal damage that was caused by the sin. For example, in John 20:23, Jesus clearly gives Peter and the other Apostles the authority to freely forgive sins: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." However, in Acts 8:22, Peter does not freely or automatically forgive Simon Magus for offering to buy the Holy Spirit with money. Rather, he commands Simon to pray that his evil intention may be forgiven. That is an indulgence --an additional measure of discipline imposed on the sinner so as to "break them" of his pride and help him to achieve true and full contrition.
Where in the Bible do we find even one example of a Catholic mass being conducted or even described?
Where do we find Christian worship described in detail at all? We do not. Rather, "Bible alone" Protestants are forced to use their imaginations in order to "fill in the gaps" left by the Bible. That is a big mistake. For, we know from Tradition and from numerous historical sources how the early Christians worshipped, and it was absolutely nothing like any Protestant service.
Also, here again, Mr. Cloud has fallen into anachronism, given that the present Mass (by which I assume he means the Liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Church) developed over time into its present form. In the early days, the Eucharist was celebrated in the context of the "Agape" or "Love Feast" --a communal meal held by the Christians in private homes (Acts 2:46, Acts 20:7, etc.), and the Roman Mass (as well as the 20 or so other Liturgies of the Church. Mr. Cloud is, no doubt, ignorant of these) developed out of that.
If Christ established the mass and if it is central to the Christian faith as Rome claims, why is there not one example of it in the book of Acts and the New Testament epistles?
We do not claim that Christ "established the Mass." The "Mass" is the Liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Church --the form of worship in the city-church of Rome. The Catholic Church has 24 other Rites --that is, other Liturgical expressions, which are similar to the Roman Mass, but different in other ways. The Mass is how Christian worship developed in the city-church of Rome. But, in various other places, other, equally-Apostolic Liturgies developed. For example, the Byzantine Rite of the Church is how Apostolic worship developed in Antioch and Constantinople. Likewise, the Coptic Rite of the Church is how Apostolic worship developed in Egypt. There is also the Armenian Rite, the Melchite Rite, the Syrian Rite, the Gallican Rite, etc., etc,, etc. ....all being the form of Liturgy which developed in the various parts of the Roman world where the Apostles preached and established churches --gearing worship to reflect the sensibilities of people who lived in the various, different cultures that they evangelized. And all of this is present in the Catholic Church --the one common link between all these Liturgies is that they all possess the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is the Liturgy of the Eucharist that Christ established, not the Mass per se. And we find His institution of the Eucharist in Matt 26:26ff, Mark 14:22, ff, Luke 22:14ff, and 1 Corinth 11:23ff. It is also alluded to in John 6.
Where in the Bible do we find Christians taking the Lord's supper by partaking of the bread alone without the wine or grape juice?
Where do we find any use of "grape juice"? The Scripture always say "wine." "Grape juice" was invented by modern Protestants who thought that alcohol is "evil." So, before you go around slinging stones at Catholics, maybe you should get your Protestant brethren to follow what the Bible really says first.
Also, as far as Catholics receiving only the consecrated Bread, as opposed to Bread and Wine, it first needs to be said that this takes place in the Roman Rite alone (the Roman Mass). In the 24 other Rites of the Church, the consecrated Bread is always dipped in the consecrated Wine, and given to the faithful (on a little spoon) that way. Also, in the Roman Mass, it is permitted to receive the Eucharist in the form of both Bread and Wine; and this is frequently done when there is a small congregation. But, needless to say, it is simply not practical when, if there are hundreds of people at a particular Mass, for them all to drink of the one Cup. Rather, because, as Luke 22:20 tells us, the Cup is "the Cup of the New Covenant," it is possible for the presiding priest to receive the Cup on behalf of everyone else assembled. What's more, all throughout the New Testament, the Eucharist is described as "the Breaking of the Bread" (Acts 2:42, 2:46, 20:7, etc.). Notice how there is no mention of "Wine." And while the Wine was of course always used, the expression illustrates the early Christian realization that Bread was the primary element of the Eucharist --the thing that was always shared among the congregation, whereas Wine was not always shared (Jesus never called Himself "the Wine of Life"). So, therein lies the Biblical principal for receiving the consecrated Bread alone. For, as Catholics and Eastern Orthoodx have always believed, even the smallest morsel of the consecrated Bread, or the consecrated Wine, is the FULL and COMPLETE Jesus -- "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity." One is not being "short changed" in any way if one receives the consecrated Bread and not the Wine. Rather, the important thing is that the Cup of the New Covenant is offered and celebrated (per Luke 22:20).
Where in the Bible does Paul or any of the early church leaders teach that there are seven sacraments?
Where does Paul (or another church leader) teach that there are any less??? A Sacrament is a physical expression of the Incarnational grace of Jesus Christ through the ministry of His Church. If you read the Bible, you will see that seven such Sacramental expressions are recorded:
1) Baptism (e.g. John 3:5, Matt 28:19, etc.)
2) Confession (e.g. John 20:23, James 5:16 ..read in the context of 5:14-16, which involves confessing to the "presbyters of the Church").
3) The Eucharist (e.g. Matt 26:26ff, Mark 14:22, ff, Luke 22:14ff, and 1 Corinth 11:23ff.)
4) Confirmation (Acts 8:14-17, 19:6)
5) Marriage (Ephesians 5:25-32)
6) Holy Orders / Ordination (Acts 14:23, 20:28, 1 Tim 5:22, etc.)
7) Anointing of the Sick (James 5:14-15).
Where in the Bible do we find the churches practicing the sacrament of confirmation?
Again, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:6. Mr. Cloud clearly doesn't read Scripture very carefully.
Where in the Bible do we find the churches practicing any sort of extreme unction or last rites as a sacrament?
Sigh! James 5:14-15. I seriously urge Mr. Cloud to spend a little more time studying Scripture before taking shots at the Catholic Church.
Where in the Bible do we find the prayer of the rosary?
A silly question. The Rosary is a Catholic devotion which developed in Spain sometime in the mid-1200's. It is of course not to be found in the Bible; although it is based on Biblical principals, since the Mysteries of the Rosary are the chief events in the life of Christ and Mary (all but two of which are specifically recounted in the Bible), and the 150 decades of the Rosary are meant to correspond to the 150 Psalms. What's more, the prayers recited in the Rosary (the Our Father, the Hail Mary, and the Glory Be) are all found in Scripture or composed from the specific words of Scripture.
And now a question for Mr. Cloud: Where does the Bible forbid the development of devotions like the Rosary??? Where does the Bible condemn meditative prayer? That is, prayerfully "pondering" the mysteries of our salvation, as Mary herself is recorded as doing in Luke 1:29, Luke 2:19, and Luke 2:51?
Where in the Bible do we find that New Testament churches are to conduct elaborate rituals and ceremonies after the fashion of Rome?
First of all, as I already illustrated, "elaborate rituals" did not originate with the Roman Rite of the Church, but were to be found independently in all the Apostolic city-churches --the Eastern Rites of the Church being far more "ritualistic" than anything Rome ever did. So, Mr. Cloud has fallen for a Protestant ahistorical myth there. What's more, speaking of the Eastern Rites of the Church, the Liturgical customs which would eventually develop into the Byzantine Rite (that is, the way Greek Christian churches worshipped throughout ancient Anatolia --home of the "Seven churches of Asia") is to be found reflected in the Book of Revelation. Here, describing the worship in Heaven itself, we are presented with bells, and harps, and incense, and vestments, and kneeling, and bowing, and chanting, and all matter of other Liturgical images which are supposed to reflect how the eternal worship of Christ in Heaven is conducted. Ah! But, if ritualism is so wrong, why does the Book of Revelation describe Heaven itself as using it??? Indeed, shouldn't Christians on earth try to imitate the perfect worship of Christ in Heaven, given that that's where we all want to end up anyway???? Mr. Cloud and his Evangelical Protestant brethren never seem to consider this. Why not?
Where in the Bible do we find that the headquarters for the church is to be in Rome?
Rome is not the "headquarters" of the Church. The "headquaters" of the Church is in Heaven with Christ Himself. Rome is merely the leading city-church --the city-church with the responsibility of maintaining all the other earthly city-churches in universal unity and orthodoxy. This is not spelled out in detail in the pages of Scripture itself, since Peter had not yet entrusted his Christ-given ministry to the Roman city-church when most of the Bible was written. However, we do see glimpses of it. For example, in 1 Peter 1:1 Peter issues teaching and instruction, not merely to one city-church (as Paul's letters do), but to a total of 5 separate provinces of the Roman Empire, each of which contained numerous city-churches. And, according to 1 Peter 5:13, Peter sends his letter while presided as a presbyter (1 Peter 5:1) in "Babylon" which was the Christian code name for Rome (e.g. Rev 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, etc.). Likewise, in Peter's Second Letter, which was also written from Rome, he writes ...
"I think it right, as long as I am in this tent (his earthly life) to stir you up by a reminder, since I know that I will soon have to put it aside, as indeed the Lord Jesus has shown me. I SHALL ALSO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ENABLE YOU ALWAYS TO REMEMBER THESE THINGS AFTER MY DEPARTURE." (2 Peter 1:13-15).
This included the appointment of a successor to his Christ-given ministry --a successor which he appointed in Rome. And, thereafter, Rome became the principal church and the universal court of final appeal. It was this same Roman church, by the way, that in A.D. 382, under Pope Damasus, which called for a universally-standard canon of the New Testament --the canon which Mr. Cloud, and all Christians, ascribe to today. So, in looking for a Biblical "proof" of Roman primacy, Mr. Cloud has things exactly backwards. The Bible did not give Rome primacy. It was Rome that gave us the Bible as we presently know it. Food for thought, Mr. Cloud.
The final hard nut is a little different, as it does not have to do with finding Roman Catholicism in the Bible. It is a question that our friend Brian Snider shared with us:: "During the last 1,700 years, the Roman Catholic Church has put to death hundreds of thousands she believed to be heretics -- Jews, dissident Catholics, Protestants, anabaptists, Hussites, Lollards, Waldenses, Albigenses and many others in distant lands who refused to convert to the 'one true church.' Today, the Roman Catholic Church calls people who hold these very same opinions 'separated brethren' and teaches it is wrong to persecute on the basis of religious belief. Which church is right? The church which killed those who dispute her teachings, or the church which treats other Christians -- and even other religions -- as alternative pathways to heaven?
Here, both Mr. Cloud and his associate Mr. Snider show themselves to be loonies, or at the very least, naive enough to believe in such loonieness. While I certainly will not deny that Catholic nations in the past have executed people for heresy (since, by medieval standards, heresy was seen as both a religious error as well as a political act of treason), the Catholic Church itself never executed anyone. Mr. Cloud needs to get his history straight there too. What's more, Protestant nations, and also many Protestant communions (e.g. the Lutherans under Luther; the Calvinists under Calvin) also executed many Catholics and others who disagreed with them. And, again, this was because, in centuries past, heresy was considered a capital offense. Freedom of religion did not exist prior to 1776 in America. Thus, in places like Protestant England (under Henry and Elizabeth, etc.) and Geneva (under Calvin), professing Catholicism merited a death sentence. But, you don't hear me blaming devout Protestants for that, because Protestantism itself had nothing to do with it.
What's more, one wonders where Mr. Snider gets his figure of "hundreds of thousands" of people, which the Catholic Church (meaning, more correctly, Catholic secular government) is supposedly guilty of killing. I defy Mr. Snider, or Mr. Cloud, to produce any reliable evidence to suppose that number. What's more, Mr. Cloud would do well to consider what sects like the Waldenses and Albigensians really believed in, and who they were really in league with. Mr. Cloud is apparently of the opinon that these people were "Christians." Big mistake. Yet, if he would like reliable histiorical information on these groups, I would be happy to provide it. Needless to say, we Catholics would not call the Waldenses or the Albigensians our "separated brethren" today, and for the simple reason that these people did not believe in the true Christ any more than modern Mormoms or Jehovah Witness do. They were dangerous and destructive quasi-pagan cults; and the modern liberal media has successfully convinced many people that they were anything but this. One must wonder, however, how good American Christians like Mr. Snider or Mr. Cloud would react if the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses had weapons of mass destruction and were threatening to take over parts of the United States and submit them to Mormonism or the Watch Tower faith. However, this is precisely what Catholic Europe faced when the Albigensians and the Waldenses won over the warrior class of Southern France and Northern Spain, and were about to succeed from Christendom, and at a time when the Muslims were poised to invade from both the East and the South. One wonders if Mr. Snider and Mr. Cloud would have been proponents of "religious tolerance" if they had lived in Europe during this time period. Somehow I doubt it.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
September 23, 2004