Is Christian worship a "non-essential"? (Romans 14:5)

Many modern day "Evangelical" Protestants consider Romans 14:5 as the chief proof text for the notion there can be "non-essential" doctrines within Christianity. While there are practices throughout Christian history that can be considered "non-essentials," it is more problematic to apply this to the category of "doctrine," since doctrine implies essential teaching. The logic that certain Protestants use typically reduces down to making almost nothing an "essential" and thus stripping Christianity of anything solid that gives it shape. But when read carefully, we see here that Paul was speaking in a relatively narrow range of 'liberty' in Christian disciplines, especially as these were tied to one's former life and thus they had a certain sensitivity to them, not merely a personal preference. In fact, Paul refers to these people who need special care as those who are "weak in faith," but didn't mean it as an insult, just that they were not mature enough to thrive, which all Christians are called to aspire to.

Let's look at the passage of Chapter 14 of Romans:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions [Greek: "scruples" / "doubts"]. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. ... 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

The verse "one person esteems one day better than another" is commonly taken to mean that when it comes to the day of worship, that is a "non-essential" doctrine, and that it is really the freedom of each individual Christian to decide whether they want to worship alone or with a community, or on Sunday or on Saturday, etc. With this mindset, these Protestants "conclude" that a true Christian could just sleep in on Sunday and not have to worship in any formal sense at all. These Protestants claim that 14:5 proves that the Church, clergy, etc, cannot even set rules/standards such as how to worship, nor set rules on fasting, etc. But was Paul really giving each Christian such "liberty"? Only a surface level and non-contextual reading could lead to such an "interpretation," while careful look at Paul's language will see he's speaking very carefully and pastorally.

Appreciating the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned

In the infamous passages of Matthew 15:1-11 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for teaching "traditions of men," which Protestants claim rules out "Catholic oral tradition". The Catholic response to this Protestant accusation is understandable, but also unfortunately surface level. When texts are misunderstood in the first place but never corrected, then what typically happens is that these texts turn into 'surface level apologetic' passages that never get studied at all. In this specific situation, Protestants would allege that the Pharisees randomly began taking on all sorts of random teachings and inventing a new religion, instead of simply following the Bible alone for their theology. Such a shallow reading of the text would warrant us to take a step back and see what was really being said here.  

Before looking at the verses itself, the first surface level rookie mistake Protestants make is to think that Jesus was teaching that any doctrine not written on paper is automatically not from God and cannot carry any authority. That Protestant claim is obviously wrong by the simple fact Jesus never wrote anything down and that Jesus taught 'orally' throughout His ministry. Many periods of Salvation History involved teaching being passed down orally, such as the command to circumcise given to Abraham and not written down for hundreds of years later until Moses. With that out of the way, we can now approach the passage with a different mindset.

Here is St Mark's account of the situation, which I trim down for brevity:

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.

Introduction to Old Testament "Feast Days"

I think it is tragic how unaware we are of the basic details of the Old Testament holidays. I think it would greatly improve our education as Catholics to learn a bit about them, especially so we can see that living liturgically has deep roots in the Old Testament, and how these OT holidays were foreshadowing of Jesus. For this post, I have decided to do some research and share what I've found, since I have never really looked into this myself and was never taught much on this subject. I might have a few details that need correction, so I welcome your feedback! 

The most important chapters on the Jewish holidays is found in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28. First we'll look at what Moses says in Leviticus 23 as God Himself lays out the Seven Major Feasts:

Does the Bible limit the Sacraments to only Baptism and Eucharist? (Sola Scriptura)

Protestants generally hold to only two Sacraments, claiming that Baptism and Eucharist are the only two "ordinances" that Jesus commanded. Reformed pastor R.C. Sproul's ministry has a reflection on this, which says (here):

Now that we have explored the sacraments in a general sense, we are prepared to look at each sacrament in more detail. Yet before we do that, we must determine the number of sacraments revealed in Scripture. Christ instituted two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (The Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 68).

It is easy to see why the Heidelberg Catechism singles out these ordinances as sacraments. After all, the Gospels reveal explicitly our Savior’s command to baptize disciples and to partake of bread and wine in His memory (Matt. 28:18–20; Luke 22:14–20). Some churches, in addition, have viewed foot washing as a third sacrament. Other churches do not invest foot washing with sacramental significance, although they may have special foot-washing services during the year. Both groups cite John 13:1–20 in defense of the practice.

What shall we say about this? Clearly, whatever freedom churches might have to engage in foot washing, no church body may impose it as a sacrament upon its people. First, the early church did not see in John 13 a command for the church in every age to wash feet. Acts, for example, records the disciples administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (2:37–42), but this New Testament book never records Apostolic foot washing. Second, Dr. R.C. Sproul notes in his commentary John that the majority of the church has not regarded foot washing as a sacrament.

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church adds five sacraments to baptism and the Lord’s Supper: penance, confirmation, marriage, holy orders (priestly ordination), and extreme unction (last rites). Of course, Roman Catholicism is right to see some of these acts as helpful to Christian growth. A godly husband, for example, rightly regards his wife as one of the most sanctifying influences in his life. An ordinance such as penance, however, denies the gospel because it calls for sinners to make satisfaction for their sin.

While the above claims are standard Protestant claims, there are some obvious problems with the above claims that we should take a look at. First of all, the use of the terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" are not used in Scripture with regards to Baptism or the Eucharist. So it is somewhat of an "oral tradition" that Protestants are appealing to when they dogmatically apply "sacrament" to these two things. Second, the only time the Bible uses the term "sacrament" in regards to these is when Paul speaks of Marriage as a "great sacrament" in Ephesians 5:32, where the Greek term mysterion ("mystery") which is precisely what the Latin term "sacrament" means (see here). So this is another blatant inconsistency.

Third, the teaching of Jesus to wash the feet of others in John 13:1-20 does sound like something of a sacrament, especially in 13-14, where Jesus says: "If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." This is an outward ordinance or ritual, that Jesus expressly commands, and is clearly tied to being washed of sins and being part of the community (v8): "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." This line of Jesus is especially noteworthy, because while Peter was already a believer in Jesus, here we see Jesus tell Peter that if Peter refuses to have his feet washed, then Jesus will disown Peter. This passage not only poses a problem for 'once saved always saved' but it also exposes the Protestant bias and inconsistency in their theology. And even if it is not a sacrament, the Church has historically seen it as an official part of the Liturgy, particularly on Holy Thursday, also called "Mandate Thursday" in Latin because Jesus "mandates" (commands) the washing of feet. So this is not "optional" for the Protestant side, yet most Protestants do not even practice the foot washing rite in any formal/concrete manner.

Did Jesus forbid "vain repetitions"?

There are plenty of Catholic articles that address the issue of "vain repetition" which Jesus forbade in Matthew 6:7, so rather than repeat them I want to share some unique findings that most of those articles don't tell you. 

 

First of all, it is shocking how everyone automatically assumes "vain repetition" is even an accurate  translation in the first place! The Greek word that Matthew uses for "vain repetitions" is a single term, battalogeo (see here). This Greek word is found nowhere else in the Bible, and apparently nowhere else in Greek literature (see here). This detail alone means we cannot be too dogmatic about the meaning. The Greek term is a compound of "batta" and "words". You can look to see that scholars admit they aren't sure what "batta" means, so they can only propose various theories based on the rest of the verse! So not only does the Greek term not clearly suggest "repetition," much less "vain," there's actually plenty of room to propose other meanings. Scholars seem divided on whether "batta" refers to an ancient pagan king who "stuttered" (which could mean various things), or whether "batta" refers to a pagan poet who wrote long drawn out poems, or whether "batta" is a made up word and equivalent to our term "blah blah blah" (i.e. babbling). The last option seems the most reasonable if the word appears nowhere else, and thus Jesus was saying something along the lines of: "When you pray, do not pray blah blah blah like the pagans".

From this first point onward, we should stop giving the so-called translation "vain repetition" any credibility at all. The origin of "vain repetitions" seems to actually be a Protestant agenda to "translate" the Bible into English with an anti-Catholic spin. This is one reason Catholics were always suspicious of Protestant Bibles. Think about it, how often "vain repetition" is turned into an instant attack on the Rosary, when this one Greek term doesn't actually clearly say anything about "vain repetition"? This Protestant bias is confirmed in the fact the King James Version is what translated "vain repetitions," whereas some honest mainstream Protestant translations use other phrases (see here), such as "do not keep on babbling like pagans" (NIV), or "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do" (ESV). The Catholic Bibles that I consulted say "speak not much, as the heathens" (Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate), and "do not babble like the pagans" (NAB), and "empty phrases" (RSVCE). Again, using the word "repetition" in one's translation is disingenuous per the limited data we have, and can really only signify anti-Catholic bias.

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).

Did Jesus allow for divorce in the event a spouse commits adultery?

Someone asked me about the "except for adultery" clause that Jesus makes regarding when divorce is allowed. Many people over the centuries have though that Jesus was indeed making one sole exception to the permanence of marriage. They understandably ready this clause as if Jesus were saying you can end your marriage if your spouse commits adultery. But the Catholic Church explains this "except for adultery" in a way that pays attention to the actual words of Jesus. And this is how the Church Fathers who comment on this "except" clause also interpret it. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence, the Church gave an official explanation:

The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church. The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.

In brief, Jesus allows for a spouse to live in a separate dwelling space if one spouse has committed fornication. But even if separated, they remain married. Divorce merely means living separately, as if single. The sin only comes about if one of those separated spouses tries to enter another marriage.

Consider the actual words of Jesus:

• Matthew 5:31 “It was also said [by Moses], ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

• Matthew 19: 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

• Mark 10:11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

• Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

• 1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.   

Notice the repeated use of the clause "and marries another". Without the "and marries another," there is no adultery. A divorce in and of itself doesn't cause adultery. Paul's explanation above also vindicates the Catholic view: separation is ok, but remarriage is not. So we can see the official Catholic reading elegantly preserves the dignity and permanence of marriage, while also easily explaining the "except" clause. I don't know of many other groups out there that have that kind of skill when it comes to exegesis. In fact, most people are oblivious to this understanding of the text.

Next, notice that of the four times divorce is talked about in the New Testament, only Matthew includes an "except" clause. That should suggest that the "except" clause is not really to be taken as a loophole. In fact, it would be kind of insane for Jesus to point back to the beginning of Creation and speak of the permanence of marriage, only to allow for a giant loophole. People would be committing adultery all the time if it meant getting out of a marriage they didn't like. That totally undermines the goal of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees.

For a detailed look at all the available Church Fathers and Councils and Documents on this issue, see THIS ARTICLE at Called To Communion. It's an excellent apologetics article, though it is very long to read.

Lutherans and the Canon of Scripture

Lutheranism and Anglicanism have always baffled me because their approach to major Protestant doctrines like Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) do not seem to be honest with the basic meaning of these slogans. For example, Lutherans (and Anglicans) hold that Baptism doesn't interfere with Faith Alone in the slightest, whereas most other Protestants see Baptism as a "work" that undermines Faith Alone. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, both Lutherans and Anglicans will freely embrace all kinds of "Catholic traditions" that aren't directly derived from the Bible, and yet claim these do not contradict Sola Scriptura. For example, the Lutheran and Anglican Liturgies are clearly stripped down versions of the Catholic Mass. The same sorts of Catholic prayers, sign of the cross, vestments, Calendar of Saints and Holidays, etc, are not found directly in the Bible and yet are a central aspect of their worship. This is both a good and a challenging thing for Catholic apologetics. 

Ultimately, I think it is good that Lutherans and Anglicans are 'inconsistent' on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, because it helps prove the Catholic case that these slogans are effectively meaningless and impossible to defend or define once we scratch the surface. With that long introduction, I think I've set the stage for this post. 

Just when I've thought I've seen it all, I come across something astonishing that I'd never imagined could happen. As I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Lutheranism the other day, I came across an astonishing passage:

Lutheranism acknowledges six specific confessions which distinguish it from other churches: the unaltered Augsburg Confession (1530), the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), Luther's Large Catechism (1529), Luther's Catechism for Children (1529), the Articles of Smalkald (1537), and the Form of Concord (1577). These nine symbolical books (including the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed) constitute what is known as the "Book of Concord", which was first published at Dresden in 1580. In these confessions the Scriptures are declared to be the only rule of faith. The extent of the Canon is not defined, but the bibles in common use among Lutherans have been generally the same as those of other Protestant denominations.

So called "Confessional" Lutherans are those who hold that the "Book of Concord," a collection of their most authoritative documents, is the supreme Confession for what it means to be a true Lutheran. Quite often, the writings of the Book of Concord do not follow what Luther himself taught, and thus Lutheranism actually rejects many of Luther's teachings (e.g. his extreme views on Predestination and rejection of Free Will, his view of polygamy, his view that souls sleep after death rather than going to heaven). What really stood out to me though was the claim that Lutherans have not defined the Canon of Scripture anywhere within the Book of Concord, which is a few hundred pages long! Could it really be that Lutherans do not have a defined/closed Canon of Scripture? That seems outrageous, so I had to look into it more. 

Baptism according to Scripture. (Do Protestants Really care about the Bible?)

In the course of my apologetics, I've come to the astonishing conclusion that it doesn't seem Protestants really care about what the Bible has to say. They don't do this intentionally, but when it comes to many Biblical doctrines, I've found in my own interactions and with reading their major theologians, that they have a very bad habit of leaving out key details when formulating doctrines. And when you confront them, they just shrug it off and have no real interest in what the Bible says. In this post, I will list all the Biblical verses that refer to the Sacrament of Baptism and let readers see what the Bible plainly has to say on the matter. I have yet to find any Protestant who has actually sat down for half an hour and read through the 25 or so verses that mention Baptism to see for themself what the Bible says. Rather, they will only quote a few verses and just go with whatever their denomination or pastor says. When I ask them to just read these verses, they act like I've asked them to deny Christianity.

I think the best way to educate yourself is to actually read the Bible for yourself, and since there are only about 25 short verses to read (texts with a * indicate the term "baptism" isn't used), this should take you less than 30 minutes to get fully informed on the matter. I will then briefly analyze the data. In the Conclusion, I will speak about the general Protestant view of Baptism contradicts the Bible, while showing that the Catholic view is fully in line with Scripture.

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
  

How Protestants violate Paul's instructions on married clergy. (1 Timothy 3:2)

Protestants often bring up 1 Timothy 3:2 against Catholicism's rules on married clergy. Protestants say that Paul plainly says a Minister must be married, and thus Catholicism must use "traditions of men" to enforce celibacy to get around Paul's requirement for Church ministry. The irony here is that Catholicism actually does follow Paul's rules, and it is Protestants who pretty blatantly violate them. Let's first take a look at the passage in question and then I'll show why Protestants don't take the Bible as seriously as they think they do.

1 Timothy 3: 2 Therefore an overseer [Pastor/Minister] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.

The first thing to note is that Paul is talking about candidates for ordination here, Paul is not talking about those already ordained. This is important because Paul is saying that the married man who seeks ordination must already be married and he must already have children (note the plural). Nothing in this text indicates someone already ordained can still get married later on, and yet Protestants teach someone who is already a Pastor can still do these things after ordination. In fact, Protestant seminaries typically consist of young men studying for ordination, and of these young men a good number of them aren't already married, and an even larger percentage of them don't have children (note the plural) yet. Thus, Protestants are blatantly violating Paul's teaching here, all the while thinking they are following Paul's teaching. So Protestants should be careful when using this verse against Catholicism, because any Protestant seminarian who is not married, or married without more than one child, or even infertile, is thus prohibited from ordination based on their own Protestant logic!

He who sees Mary sees the Father. A simple yet mind-blowing insight to increase Marian devotion.

Marian Devotion is hard for a lot of people, both Catholics and Protestants. This usually stems from the Protestant tendency to denounce the Blessed Virgin as a way to take a swipe at Catholicism. The poison that is usually introduced comes in the form of fear of idolatry, fear of elevating Mary too high, thus detracting from the honor and devotion due to the Trinity alone. But the greatest of Catholic saints, those who were very close to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, got that way through their closeness to and high esteem of Mary (and Joseph, but that's for another time). This post is intended to break through that fear, and come out on the other side as madly in love with Mary as your actual mother and not fearing to use very flowery language in honor of Her. I want to keep this post short and hopefully follow it up with other reflections as I am able. 

To get the ball rolling, I want to begin with a profound insight I heard in a homily by Fr Ryan Erlenbush (I highly recommend following his blog and hearing all his sermons). I will summarize what he said and add my own thoughts: Jesus famously said of Himself that "He who sees me sees the Father" (John 12:25). This is one of the most astonishing claims ever made. You can hardly take it in. There's something so beautiful and simple about it, yet so mysterious and mind-blowing. You really have to be a spiritual master to even begin to break this down into digestible pieces for the rest of us. One such profound insight on this is that there is a real sense in which we can say the same thing of the Blessed Virgin Mary: he who sees Mary sees the Father. This is so outrageous sounding that you should be uncomfortable at first just hearing it, and yet it's so eye-opening once you see it that you can never unsee it. 

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.

Was the 'one bishop per city' model of church leadership an unbiblical corruption by Catholicism? (A brief look at the monespiscopate)

One anti-Catholic argument I'm seeing come up more and more frequently is the claim that Scripture describes church governance (polity) as done by a plurality of elders/bishops who are co-ruling over a city/church, whereas the notion of authority concentrated into the hands of one elder/bishop ruling over a city/church is a later invention. The goal of this anti-Catholic argument is to suggest the office of Papacy grew out from this earlier one-bishop (monepiscopacy) corruption of true Biblical polity.

The Protestant/Liberal argument is basically this: in the New Testament, the term "bishop" ("elder") is always used in the plural, and that it wasn't until AD150 that the monepiscopate (i.e. one bishop per city) model arose in some places. At first, this claim seems to have some plausibility, but looking at it with the right glasses on will reveal the desperation of these Protestant/Liberal folks to do whatever they can to smear Jesus' one and only Catholic Church.

The first thing I noticed about this anti-Catholic argument is that it claims this major heresy arose as "late" as 75 years after the Apostles died, around AD150. It is unlikely that such a significant error would arise that early on, only to be universally embraced by even the great Church Fathers, and nobody to oppose it. Further, this small window of time doesn't leave much room for a fair look at the evidence, since the early Christian writings for this period are minimal. This kind of argument is essentially based on the Liberal/Protestant notion that Christianity as we know it was invented over the centuries by the workings of men, who corrupted Christ's simple teachings early on and invented basically every doctrine we now affirm. If it can be argued that Christianity is a series of inventions, like the monespiscopate, then this leaves Christianity with little credibility before the world. It's sad that Protestants would want to go there, but Liberalism is quite literally an outworking of this kind of Protestant thought. Just looking at the Council of Nicaea in AD325, which historically Protestants pretend to accept when Catholics aren't looking, in Canon 6 it explains there is a head bishop in Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome - the three biggest Christian metro areas. Are these Protestants seriously going to say Nicaea espoused both orthodoxy and heresy? Sadly, many Protestants would rather throw out Nicaea than grant any points to Catholicism. I call this the ABC mindset - Anything But Catholic - wherein an opponent of Catholicism would rather accept the most absurd conclusions (e.g. throwing out Nicaea) rather than admit Catholicism got something right.

Was there really no Bible until the year AD381?

I'm writing on an urgent matter that I think needs to be addressed within Catholic apologetics, namely the widespread Catholic claim that there was no Bible until Pope Damasus gave us the canon of Scripture in AD381. At best, this is a half truth, and at worst this is an implicit heresy and undermines Christianity. While it might score points against Protestants during a Sola Scriptura discussion, it's a bad argument that does far more harm than good. 

The problem with the "no Bible until 381" claim is that those who make the claim typically have in their mind that in the early Church - sometime after the Apostles died (~AD80) and up to 300 years later (~AD380) - there was mass confusion as to what books were Scripture and what weren't, such that the Pope had to call a Council to settle the matter by sifting through a massive pile of books, some which were inspired and some which were uninspired, and the "result" was the canon of Scripture. This mindset suggests that the Bible wasn't something passed onto us by Tradition, but rather something that was basically invented. The Pope most certainly did not walk into a library and start reading random books and try to "detect" if this or that book should be in the Bible.  In fact, this false 'personally feel out if this book is inspired' method is closer to the Protestant and Mormon approach to the canon of Scripture.

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.