Synagogues aren't Temples - kind of a big deal Pt.2

From my recent post (here) discussing the plain distinction between the synagogue versus the Temple, it has let me to look into the "Biblical details" more of each institution, including the key passages which were already cited. This study is important because if the Bible does use worship type language in regards to the synagogue, then it would mean the prior post would have to be significantly retracted or modified. However, if the Bible does not use worship type language with regards to the synagogue, then the prior post is more firmly established.

To begin, the Greek word "worship" appears about 60 times in the NT, and it is largely used to refer to people "bowing down" in reverence. That said, "worship" is clearly tied to Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple, is clear from Luke 2:37; John 4:20-21; 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Heb 9:1;  Rev 11:1 (1 Cor 14:23-25; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 15:4-5). Worship is associated with "religion" and "altar" (Acts 17:22-23). Worship is "regulated" by "covenant" and holy places (Heb 9:1-2).

I did not see the synagogue mentioned in any of these verses, implying "worship" (in the Biblical sense) does not take place in the synagogue. So far this data fits with the Catholic thesis that I wrote about in the prior article. Now onto the next word to look at.

The synagogue is not the Temple - kind of a big deal

The New Testament speaks often of Jesus and the Apostles visiting various synagogues, but the synagogue is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Isn't that strange that a major facet of Jewish life in the New Testament doesn't get any (clear) mention in the Old Testament? This got me thinking about the origins and meaning of the Synagogue.

The various encyclopedias that I've come across say the synagogue originated around the time of the Babylonian Exile (600BC). Thus, while the term "synagogue" (and "church") literally means a gathering or assembly, the term synagogue referring to a "house of worship" (as we now think of it) didn't come around until 800 years after the Israelites left Egypt (1400BC). The Catholic Encyclopedia says on Synagogue:

It was probably during the Babylonian captivity that the synagogue became a national feature of Hebrew worship. Afar from their Temple, the exiled Jews gathered into local meeting-houses for public worship. Sacrifice was denied them; prayer in common was not. The longer their exile from the national altar of sacrifice, the greater became their need of houses of prayer; this need was met by an ever-increasing number of synagogues, scattered throughout the land of exile. From Babylonia this national system of synagogue worship was brought to Jerusalem. That the synagogue dates many generations earlier than Apostolic times, is clear from the authority of St. James: "For Moses [the Torah] has been proclaimed in every city since ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21).

The consensus of most sources is that since the Israelites were removed from the Promise Land and their Temple destroyed during the Babylonian exile (600-530BC), they obviously could no longer worship as they once did, and thus they needed to improvise. During the Babylonian exile, they were allowed to gather somewhat, read Scripture somewhat, have sermons, pray, etc, and so this became a new standard feature of Jewish life. Since many Israelites/Jews were scattered abroad and never returned home, the synagogue system became especially necessary to carry on their faith. 

The Mosaic Law foresaw the Israelites worshiping through a Sacrificial Priesthood, which after arriving in the Promise Land became centered in Jerusalem at the Temple (Jn 4:19-21; Jn 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev 11:1). Sacrifices are a prominent theme from the earliest pages of Genesis, and sacrificing to God was a central theme in letting the Israelites go free from Egypt (Ex 8:25-29 - 1400BC). Even coming back from the Babylonian Exile (530BC) had prioritized getting the Temple back up and running as soon as possible, and the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was about re-consecrating the Temple just 150 years prior to Jesus. So to just stop sacrificing is not really optional, and in fact it is a serious deformation of the Israelite religion to not have sacrifices going on (e.g. the book of Leviticus is dedicated to priestly sacrifices). Since the synagogue system was never about sacrifices this would strongly suggest it is not an actual (nor approved) replacement of sorts for the Temple sacrifices. The fact that during the ministry of Jesus the Temple sacrifices were going on at the same time as synagogue attendance even more strongly indicates they are not the same in the (ancient) Jewish mind (John 18:20; Acts 24:12). This realization, namely the the Synagogue is clearly distinct from the Temple, has serious ramifications for how we as Catholics (and Orthodox) view both the Jews and Protestants. 

By a single offering he has perfected them - Does Hebrews 10:14 refute Catholicism?

I was reading an article where a Protestant pastor cited Hebrews 10:14 as his primary proof text against the doctrine of Purgatory. The verse says: "For by a single offering he [Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." The pastor's interpretation was something along the lines of: by that one single sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus has perfectly saved us, leaving nothing unfinished, and thus there is no room nor need for us needing forgiveness later on (e.g. such as in Purgatory). This reading is understandable, and quite common for Protestants to make against Catholics. So I think it's a good idea to take a look at how to address this claim.

The first thing I would point out is that Christians can still fall into sin and still need to repent of any new sins (e.g. forgive us our tresspasses), as we see throughout the Bible. The congregations in Corinth and Galatia had fallen into sin and needed to repent (2 Cor 12:21). Jesus even sends John to warn the 'seven churches' of Revelation ch2-ch3 of repenting of their bad behavior. So it is a well-established fact that forgiveness is not something that takes place only once in a Christian's life. Thus, we have good reason to not interpret the "by one offering he perfected" of Heb 10:14 to mean your sins are perfectly forgiven the moment you first accept the Gospel. On top of that, even Protestants admit that our growing in inward holiness is a 'work in progress', since each day we must strive to uproot sin and become more holy, which is a very slow process, meaning Christians are far from perfect. And without the Cross, we would be unable to make any steps towards holiness at all. But then we must admit "the one offering" did not perfect our sanctification, and thus we see a second reason why the Protestant interpretation cannot work against Purgatory. With the Protestant interpretation largely discredited, that opens up the door for us to explore alternative interpretations of what Paul is saying, because it seems like a very big deal to say that the Cross perfects us.

The next reasonable step in our study is to consider the possible meanings of the words that 10:14 uses, because often times we incorrectly assume the modern day English meaning of a Biblical word. The key word of this passage is "perfected," which Greek term is found 24x in the New Testament (here), and has a range of meaning along the lines of "to complete, accomplish, finish, bring to the end goal". If you look at the verses, this Greek term "perfect" is not used in any of these verses to mean nor suggest "without sin, flawless," such that a Christian is absolutely perfect now. Consider that Jesus told his Apostles that He was 'not yet perfect' (Lk 13:32; Heb 5:9; 7:28), which obviously cannot mean Jesus was not yet sinless, but rather that Jesus had yet to attain His final goal (Cross & Resurrection). And Paul says he as a Christian has not attained perfection yet (Phil 3:12), which obviously contradicts Heb 10:14 unless we admit "perfect" can have a range of meaning. So at this point, we can safely say that Heb 10:14 means that Christians have been brought to some goal or accomplishment stage, but that is not a state of sinless perfection.

Abraham and the Sacraments - another beautiful example of typology in the OT

As I was reflecting upon the fascinating chapter 17 of Genesis, where God first introduces the covenant of circumcision, I realized that the very next chapter introduces even more:

Genesis 17:26 That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his house, were circumcised with him. 18:1 And the Lord appeared to him as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth 3 and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, 5 while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on - since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.”

With the chapter breaks, we generally don't read Genesis 17 in context with Genesis 18, but clearly there is a connection. In the very first words of ch 18, we see Abraham was most likely recovering from circumcision the day(s) prior, mentioned in the closing of ch 17. What we see is that immediately after getting circumcised, Abraham has a mysterious visit from three men, which he welcomes into his home and has a washing of feet and banquet. As with my other OT foreshadowing posts (e.g. here), we should be looking for deeper spiritual lessons when we see 'strange' things happen in the OT. In this case, I believe the Catholic tradition would happily see the New Testament Sacraments hidden here. Following our baptism, we immediately welcome the Holy Trinity into our life, and this sets us up for receiving the Eucharist and washing of the disciples feet. It is well known that Genesis 18 is a foreshadowing of the Trinity, and I'm sure there are other images here that I'm missing, but I've never seen anyone mention the circumcision/baptism connection before, though I'm sure others have.

After Abraham welcomes the "three men",
he is told Sarah will miraculously conceive

 

King David and the Sacraments - a beautiful example of typology in the OT

I came across a passage which I believe testifies to the Catholic approach to reading the OT, namely seeing New Testament signs hidden therein. This is known as OT 'typology', which some Protestants might cringe at but I think is perfectly legitimate:

2 Sam 12: 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. 20 Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate.

David was being punished for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, and had been fasting while his infant son was sick. When the fasting/penance period was over, David got up, washed, anointed, changed, worshiped, ate. This to me sounds like the traditional Christian practice of conversion, namely fasting as you desire to leave your old life behind, then baptism, anointing with oil (Confirmation), and putting on clean robe (Baptismal Garment), then gathering for the Mass to receive the Eucharist. I'm sure that I'm not the first to notice this, but strangely enough I've never seen anyone mention it. I just 'accidentally' came across it recently while reading the narrative. This is all I have to share for now, but I think this passage fits within my "reconsidered" understanding of the Justification narrative of Romans 4:6-8, which I've discussed (here).

Nathan telling David, "You're the man!" (not a compliment)

Isaiah's prophecy of the New Testament priesthood.

There's a fascinating prophecy in Isaiah that clearly points to an upcoming Gentile priesthood within the New Testament Church. This is a good verse to keep in mind when talking to Protestants, who strongly resist the idea of a New Testament sacrificial priesthood:

Isaiah 66: 20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.

To fully appreciate what Isaiah is saying, recall that in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the priesthood was hereditary, tied strictly to the biological lineage of Levi. Within the Tribe of Levi, only Aaron's biological sons were priests, while the rest of the Levites were assistants, which we would call Deacons (see here). So for Isaiah to say there will come a time when men from 'every nation' will be called to the priesthood, that's very radical.

We would certainly expect Protestants to object to this text, but the good news is that they actually agree with this prophecy! The Reformed Protestant tradition teaches within the Westminster Standards on Form of Church Government:

That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isaiah lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old.

And also a little bit later:

To administer the sacraments. To bless the people from God, Numb. vi. 23, 24, 25, 26. Compared with Rev. i.4, 5, (where the same blessings, and persons from whom they come, are ex mentioned,) Isa. lxvi. 21, where, under the names of Priests and Levites to be continued under the gospel, are meant evangelical pastors, who therefore are by office to bless the people.

What is ironic here is that the Reformed Protestant tradition basically makes the case for the Catholic priesthood for us, but the Reformed Protestant refuses to admit it (or doesn't want to deal with it).

Another noteworthy prophecy is seen when Jesus goes in to cleanse the Temple: "And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”" This quote is taken from Isaiah 56, which says:

6 “And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant: 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

Again, the same theme as Isaiah 66:21 above. Those from all nations, no longer only the Levites, will be welcome to minister to God in liturgical worship, including offering sacrifices. This is no small prophecy, but rather one which the Christian Church is heavily based upon for our own worship even today, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (see here).

Overview of the Old Testament Priesthood

The following quotes are taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Priesthood," which I think are worth sharing. I will quote the article freely, with slight edits for readability and keeping things brief.

The word priest is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder). By the term is meant a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice.

In the age of the Patriarchs the offering of sacrifices was the function of the father or head of the family (cf. Genesis 8:20; 12:7, etc.; Job 1:5). Hummelauer's hypothesis that this pre-Mosaic priesthood was abolished in punishment of the worship of the golden calf (Exodus 32) can hardly be scientifically established.

In the Mosaic priesthood we must distinguish: priests, Levites, and high-priest.

Priests. It was only after the Sinaitical legislation that the Israelitic priesthood became a special class in the community. From the tribe of Levi, Jahweh chose the house of Aaron to discharge permanently and exclusively all the religious functions; Aaron himself and later the first-born of his family was to stand at the head of this priesthood as high-priest, while the other Levites were to act, not as priests, but as assistants and servants. The solemn consecration of the Aaronites to the priesthood took place at the same time as the anointing of Aaron as high-priest (Exodus 29:1-37; 40:12 sqq.; Leviticus 8:1-36). 

The official duties of the priests related partly to their main occupations, and partly to subsidiary services. To the former category belonged all functions connected with the public worship, e.g. the offering of incense twice daily (Exodus 30:7), the weekly renewal of the loaves of proposition on the golden table (Leviticus 24:9), the daily offering of the morning and evening sacrifices, especially of the lambs (Exodus 29:38 sqq.). As subsidiary services the priests had to sound the trumpets announcing the holy-days (Numbers 10:1 sqq.), declare the lepers clean or unclean (Leviticus 13-14; Deuteronomy 24:8; cf. Matthew 8:4).

Did Jesus teach Salvation by Faith Alone? Yes, but not how you might think.

One thing I love about interacting with Protestants, especially the more intelligent ones, is how often their own claims against Catholicism end up turning into some of my most powerful apologetics tools against Protestantism. Here's a great quick example that I recently came across. A Protestant was trying to point out how Jesus taught the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the situation with Jarius in Luke 8. The passage is as follows: 

40 Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him. 41 And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him to come to his house, 42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. 

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

49 While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” 50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” 51 And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened.

Now, first of all, contrary to the Grand Protestant Strawman, Catholics fully believe that faith alone saves us. Heretics love to steal orthodox teaching and twist the doctrine and terminology. In fact, it is Protestantism which teaches we are saved by works alone, apart from faith, grace, etc. That's because their completely unbiblical doctrine of "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness" is based on their bad logic which teaches man gets to heaven by living a perfectly sinless life. They say that since Adam sinned man can no longer 'work his way into heaven', showing that in the Protestant mind, works alone are what saved from the very beginning. Protestants compound this error by thinking that in order to be saved, Jesus had to live a perfect life and 'impute' this perfect life to the sinner, so that God can see the sinner as if the sinner lived a life of 100% perfect works. All faith does in the Protestant mind is transfer Christ's perfect obedience to their account. See how works alone, at the very root, is really what the Protestant believes? The Catholic side doesn't believe this terrible logic one bit, and I've written for years against it. 

Why "calling upon the name of the Lord" to be saved refutes Justification by Faith Alone (Romans 10:9-10).

Protestants are fond of quoting Romans 10:9-10 as 'clear Biblical proof' that we are saved by faith alone. Yet a careful look at the verse doesn't actually say this, and in fact suggests the opposite. I've posted about this in the past (HERE), but after some recent discoveries I'd like to build on what I originally said. The passage in question says:

Romans 10: 9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that this text explicitly says you must do two things: believe and confess. This, taken plainly, refutes salvation by faith alone. If you bring this up, Protestants will squirm and make excuses, but it really does expose a flaw in their thinking. The more they try to explain, the less convincing faith alone sounds. 

Also worth noting is that the only place where "believe" and "confess" appear in the same passage (that I was able to find) are found in John 12:42, which is quite helpful here: "many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue". Based on this Scripture-interprets-Scripture situation, it is clear that believing alone is not enough. Many believed in Jesus but were too afraid to openly confess Him. So this confessing before men refers to affirming you're a Christian and be willing to 'suffer the consequences'. Obviously, this is very devastating to Protestant theology, because if someone denies Jesus, that is not confessing him before men, they wont be saved per Paul's argument (cf Matt 10:33; 2 Tim 2:12). But I've come across something more fascinating to add to the above. 

Are we saved by Wine Alone? (The Apostolic dogma of mixing of Water & Wine in the Chalice.)

Most of us know that during the Sacrifice of the Mass there comes a point when the priest is preparing the chalice when he mixes water with the wine prior to Consecration. I have always seen this as a beautiful 'ritual', but until recently I didn't realize how plainly it was included in Early Church Father writings and that the Church has always insisted it is part of proper celebration of the Eucharist. In this post I want to quote some of the ancient sources I found testifying to this practice, and from there I want to bring up the question of how this squares with Sola Scriptura. (This is another post in my How Liturgy Refutes Protestantism series, see HERE and HERE for two of the main articles.) 

Here are some early Church testimonies I came across: 

• Justin, AD150 (First Apology, Sec65):
  There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father . . . those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true . . . Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings
• Irenaeus, AD180 (Against Hereies Bk4:Ch33):
  Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? ... (Bk5:Ch2) When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported ... (Bk5:36) For the Lord also taught these things, when He promised that He would have the mixed cup new with His disciples in the kingdom
  

Countering the Protestant claim that "Oral Tradition" was invented to justify unbiblical teachings.

Protestants are understandably concerned when Catholics appeal to "Tradition" when justifying certain teachings. There is a certain objectivity, and thus safety, about having a written document like the Scriptures. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why Catholics believe God gave us the Scriptures in the first place. Too often, appeals to Tradition are framed in terms of "Catholics cannot justify this teaching from Scripture, so they must turn elsewhere," and that "elsewhere" is seen as some secrete list of teachings passed on orally, from one bishop to another, even though nobody knows when or where. If this is what "Tradition" refers to, then this should be troubling to any Catholic. But fortunately, that's not the case, and in fact the answer is deceptively simple: Oral Tradition within historical Christianity is basically synonymous with the Liturgical Life, that is how the Sacraments are celebrated, the Liturgical Calendar, etc. These are very 'public' sources to consult, and more or less objective as well, so there is no hiding things and then randomly appealing to some unwritten unverifiable "tradition" when need be. 

Why Protestants reject the Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Nicaea is a very useful apologetics tool beyond just discussing matters of the Trinity. What most people don't realize is that Nicaea produced more than just a Creed, it also issued 20 canonical laws which were binding on all Christians living at that time. The information contained in these Canons is just as useful (if not more so) as any Church Father when it comes to evaluating Protestantism against the bar of Church history. Below, I will mention why each of the 20 Canons are incompatible with all Protestantism in one way or another. This leaves Protestantism in a significant bind, because virtually all Protestants wholeheartedly affirm the Creed and deem the Council to be an orthodox testimony in early Christianity. After reading these Canons, the Protestant must recognize that they cannot embrace the Creed without also embracing the Canons, because if the Canons teach heresy and error, then the Protestant has no business at all embracing the Creed which this same Council produced. Protestants have no problem affirming the Catholic Church is correct on a lot of things, but they say the Catholic Church is false and cannot be trusted because it also teaches many errors. By this same logic, a Protestant must reject Nicaea as well, for Nicaea teaches many "errors" in its Canons and binds all Christians to these "errors" as well.

Why Head Coverings blind Protestants.

I think I've formulated a new apologetics argument that should prove fun and (hopefully) fruitful when talking with Protestants. Basically, the way Protestants view the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist is similar to how Paul describes the reason for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. The result of this line of thinking would not only force Protestants to make Baptism indistinguishable from Eucharist, but also to 'raise' Head Coverings up to the level of a new Sacrament in itself. Let's see where this goes. 

As (Not So) Often As You Do This - another round of the crushing Protestant liturgical dilemma

Though I haven't had much time to blog recently, I wanted to show people a beautiful real-life example of the crushing effectiveness of the Ultimate Catholic Apologetics Argument (UCAA) against Protestants (which I posted about previously). 

A "Reformed Baptist" pastor named Ken at the Protestant apologetics site Beggars All had a post focused on criticizing Catholics for following "traditions of men" rather than the Bible, which turned out to be highly ironic shortly after I brought up the UCAA in the combox. There's no need to read the post or most of the comments, but if you're interested just see the last ten comments or so for how effortlessly the UCAA can take down the most committed "Bible Christian" (see THIS link to take you straight to the last few comments). 

The key post is when I responded to Ken saying, 

[Pastor Ken said]: None of what you say really carries any weight with me, since you are right in the sense that that an order of worship is not laid out word for word, but the general idea is for us to worship God by Scripture, prayer, singing, teaching, etc. and we can arrange the order however we want to and that is not a big deal to me.

[Nick's response]: The main problem I have here is that you haven't actually given any Scriptural verses that say what the "general idea" is for Christian Liturgy. The closest thing you've listed is the Lord's Supper, which you say you only do once a month. I don't even think you've given a verse that says singing is supposed to be done during liturgy.

As for your admission that you only celebrated the Lord's Supper once a month, this is astonishing because either it is part of liturgy or it isn't. If it is part of liturgy, you have no right to only do it 25% of the time. This suggests a person can celebrate the Lord's Supper as rarely as they feel like it, and by extension they can leave out Scripture, prayer, etc, as often as they feel like it. All this reduces down to a liturgical relativism, which really isn't liturgy at all, but more and more a man-made event according to personal taste.

As you can see, Ken was pretty trapped here, because while the Bible does indicate the Eucharist is the essential part of the liturgy, and thus is done "often" (1 Cor 11:26), both Ken and most Evangelicals do not do this that often. And as I also point out, to compound the dilemma they are in, that line of thinking means there is nothing actually essential to the Christian Liturgy, which is ridiculous, and results in the Protestant being able to leave out anything they want on any given Sunday.

Now, it's important to note that while this massive problem didn't bother Ken nor will it trouble most other Protestants, the fact is it should, and I believe that it eventually will bother them. For now, it's great that some seeds were planted. I strongly believe that if more Catholics would start using the UCAA, I swear that this will be the downfall of Westminster Seminary in a few short years.

The ultimate and most effective Catholic apologetics argument against Protestantism.

I have come to the conclusion that the most powerful apologetics argument that a Catholic can make against Protestantism is that their Sunday Liturgy is actually man-made and thus blatant idolatry. Let me explain this more.

The most important duty a human has, regardless even of whether they are a Christian or not, is to worship God. This should be - without a doubt - an obvious truth that everyone can agree upon. Given this, a person must not only worship God, they must do so properly, i.e., they must worship as God has instructed them to do. This means that Liturgy requires divine revelation, because otherwise the person is "worshiping" God based on what sounds good to their human mind...but there is a word for worshiping according to what sounds good to you: it's called idolatry. So the only way to escape idolatry is to worship according to how God has divinely revealed it. Which leads us to the key problem which all Protestants face.

A Catholic Grand Slam against Protestantism

In baseball, a Grand Slam is when the batter hits a home run while the bases are loaded, resulting in an instant score of 4 home runs. Using that analogy, have come across 4 devastating quotes against Protestantism (and even Eastern Orthodoxy) coming from the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus (431AD). As I present the quotes, it will become clear from the significance of the things taught that one must take a stand and conclude either this Council was orthodox and Catholic or heterodox and untrustworthy.

Quote #1 - 

Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, “Do all things with advice,” it is especially their duty who have had the priestly ministry allotted to them to examine with all diligence whatever matters are to be transacted. (Letter to the Synod in Pamphylia)

First off, credit goes to Joe and his excellent Catholic apologetics blog for finding this quote. The quote "Do all things with advice" comes directly from the deutero-canonical book of Sirach 32:19, and the footnote on this text quotes famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff who agrees that this Ecumenical Council plainly saw this book as divinely inspired Scripture. But Protestants say that this book is for sure not inspired Scripture and they threw out this book.

Quote #2 -

Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood. (Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

This quote contains three powerful statements that should make any good Protestant cringe. First, St Cyril describes the Mass as the "Unbloody Sacrifice," meaning the Mass is a Sacrifice and re-presents the same sacrifice of Calvary but only in an 'unbloody' manner, the very thing Catholic Dogma teaches. Second, St Cyril says that the Eucharist is Christ's actual flesh and blood, not mere bread symbolizing Christ's flesh. Third, at the end of this quote Cyril quotes John 6:52-53, saying that this refers to the Eucharist. But Protestants cannot affirm any of these things, and in fact hold them as hallmarks of a false church. 

Quote #3 - 

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors.  The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time (Session III)

This quote plainly says that there is no doubt and that it is known by all that Peter was the prince and head of the apostles and leader of the Church, and that Pope Celestine was Peter's successor and rules in his place. This quote is an abomination for both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox for obvious reasons: if the Papacy is true, both of those groups are in deep trouble! Eastern Orthodox love to espouse that the Papacy is the worst heresy ever, even worse than Arianism and Nestorianism. And yet nobody at this Council noticed the worst heresy ever being spouted right off in front of them! They must pick whether this Council taught heresy here or whether the Catholic Church is right. The truth is plain for those who want to see it.

Quote #4 - 

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh let him be anathema. (Anathema #1 against Nestorius)

If anyone does not agree that in a real sense that Mary is the "Mother of God," then they are embracing heresy. Of course, this dogma has been widely misunderstood to mean Mary created/produced the Trinity, but all it means is that Mary bore and gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son. There are many Protestants who disagree with this dogmatic teaching and do not believe Mary is "Mother of God" and consider this a major heresy and blasphemy.

In the end, the Protestant really has to decide whether the Church went completely in heresy this early on in Church history or not. These teachings are too significant to sweep them under the rug or cherry pick the Council's teachings. This Council provided a benchmark for all Christianity at the time as to what was orthodox and what wasn't, so to claim heresy effectively entails the whole visible Church went apostate. I know many Protestants will try all kinds of fancy tricks to get around this, but really this isn't a hard issue to address. Catholics have no problem taking these things at face value as they're plainly taught, and we affirm these things even today. 

Either take Christian history seriously or don't. I would just hope that Protestant seminaries would be honest enough to admit that this Council sounds nothing like what any Protestant denomination would ever teach.

St Cyril of Jerusalem gives an example of Tradition (Were the Early Church Fathers Protestant?)

Often times Protestants ask Catholics to "define Tradition," expecting to find some long drawn out list of teachings that weren't written down in Scripture. The problem is, that's not how Tradition is understood. Rather, a better understanding of Tradition is the Church's Liturgical life, seeing the oral tradition expressed in ancient prayers of the Mass. A good example of this can be seen in St Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures. 

Is there a New Testament Priesthood?

In an earlier article I wrote on the Protestant inability to worship God since they lack a priesthood and cannot offer sacrifice. That was mostly a philosophical argument based on Natural Law. In this article, I'd like to talk about the Biblical evidence for the New Testament Priesthood, with the goal of helping Catholics have a deeper appreciation for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

Protestants object to the office of the New Testament Priesthood for various reasons, but their main argument against the priesthood is that they say it isn't taught in Scripture. However, the reason why they don't see evidence for it in Scripture is because they either don't know what to look for or they are so hardened that they cannot concede anything to the Catholic side. 

Many Catholics claim that the English term "priest" comes from the Greek term for "elders" in the Bible, presbuteros, and while that's probably true, I think more needs to be shown than just a name. Because of this, I'm offering the following three points to lay a solid foundation for the office of priesthood in the New Testament.