Here at Catholic Answers, one of the most effective methods for countering attacks and clearing up misconceptions about the Catholic Faith have been our tracts. They have been around since the beginning of the apostolate and have resulted in many thousands of conversions. These tracts provide a real point of contact for someone in discovering the truths of the Catholic Faith.
There is a continuous onslaught of Catholics asking the C.A. apologist to explain why something they were told by a Protestant is not true. Catholic Answers biggest fear is that Catholics will be drawn away from the Catholic Church by listening to Protestants, and the tracts on their website play an important role in making sure that does not happen. So wouldn’t it be interesting if Catholics start asking their apologists to answer challenges to their tracts?
If the tracts are the go-to source for clearing up misconceptions, where will they tell them to go when the tracts themselves are shown to be deceitful? Now I’m not talking about misunderstanding or opposing interpretations I’m talking about very intentional well-crafted deceit. For example… Read the rest of this entry »
The primary thing Tom Nash did not do in his response to my article, was to explain anything. He completely relied on the mindset of Catholics to interpret excerpts from Irenaeus as they have been conditioned to do. In contrast I have provided context and explanations which I think are preferred by reasonable people.
Let’s start with a quote from Irenaeus that Mr. Nash considered to stand on its own in support of Catholic real presence:
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”
To properly expound on this quote we need to take in context. However, not a lot of context is required in order to understand the point Irenaeus is trying to make. Just going back to the beginning of the paragraph (5.2.2) where the quote was taken helps a great deal. It starts with this sentence:
“But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption.”
The heretics to whom he was referring were those who believed that the material world was evil including the flesh and blood of man. They saw the world as imperfect, flawed, and evil, not because of the fall of Adam and Eve, but because they believed it was created that way. They could not reconcile a perfect God creating an imperfect world. Their view of Jesus was that He was a mere man who became divine as a result of His spiritual virtue. They believed He became the manifestation of Christ at the moment of His baptism.
An article recently appeared on the Catholic.com website that responds to my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence.” The article was written by Catholic apologist, Tom Nash, who posted it in the website’s online magazine section. Here is a link to the article: The Early Church Believed in the Eucharist
My article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence” is a contextual approach to the early church writings. The article was written in 2009. I am currently working on a new revision to the article that will provide more background on the writers, an even more comprehensive look at what they believed about the eucharist, and a couple additional works that lend well to the topic, but carry with them a level uncertainty as to their dates, which of course will be fully disclosed.
It is my opinion that Mr. Nash did an inadequate job of refuting the conclusions of my article since he failed on every point to incorporate any context. Essentially, Mr. Nash relied on isolated quotes to suggest to his readers that what these quotes say sounds very Catholic. On that point I agree. It’s the reason why Catholic Answers lists strings of them without contextual support. But to me context is everything, and I am certain that every other fair-minded individual out there would agree.
Unlike any other book of the New Testament, the book of Acts is a historical work, and the so-called council of Jerusalem is a historical event. All too often historical events get interpreted through the lens of one’s current ideology. In the case of the Jerusalem council, the long-held interpretation that the apostles and elders came together to decide whether Gentiles need circumcision, was interpreted through the lens of post-Nicene church leaders who themselves asserted similar authority and needed a Scriptural example for doing it.
Unlike Christians in the past who were denied Scriptural examination, we have the privilege of not only examining Scripture, but to do it in any language or translation we like. So when Christians today propagate the same interpretations held by those who formed them for selfish gain, it astonishes me. It astonishes me because Luke, the author of the book of Acts, took valuable time and effort to lay the foundation of what transpired in Jerusalem nearly two millennia ago; context that is largely ignored.
A new page on the Onefold Blog details the event in context. Beginning with Paul’s conversion to the faith, the article walks the reader through the context laid out by Luke and adds historical insight. It follows Paul and Peter along different paths and demonstrates that they, and the other apostles and elders, had been of the same understanding regarding Gentiles for nearly twenty years prior to the meeting in Jerusalem. It examines the underlying issue in the Jerusalem church that grew like a cancer and eventually culminated in the largest controversy of the apostolic church.
To read the article, click here, or navigate through the menu above.
I was recently made aware of a website called, Called to Communion,” in particular to an article written by a gentleman named, Tim Troutman. The article is titled, “The Church Fathers on Transubstantiation.” Mr. Troutman’s objective was to prove that the early church fathers affirm a change in substance of the elements of the Eucharist into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, though admitting that it is not expressly stated in any patristic source.
In his introduction he points to a type of evidence which he states is a “simple identification of the consecrated species with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.” He goes on to explain, “Because unconsecrated bread is not called the Body, and consecrated is called the Body, this directly implies a belief that a supernatural change has taken place at the point of consecration.” It seems much could be implied from approaching the early church works from this viewpoint. I would say it implies that they referred to it as the Lord’s body and blood simply because the Lord Himself did, and for no other reason than that. In fact, we will see from the first quote used by Mr. Troutman, that this is exactly what we find. But Mr. Troutman’s first claim is the most important; the claim that the early church fathers affirmed a change in the elements. Read the rest of this entry »
Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, authored an article titled, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism — The Eucharist,” which can be read here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0003.html. The subject of the article was John chapter six, the bread of life discourse.
Mr. Keating has a fair amount of respect among Catholics who visit my blog, which is why I want to address his article here. He is the champion of using early church writings out of context, avoiding context within Scripture, and using references of which he seems to have little familiarity to support his arguments. It was his plethora of out-of-context quotes published on his website, Catholic Answers, that inspired me to write a lengthy contextual article on the early church view of the eucharist. Here I just want to respond to some of his arguments on the bread of life discourse. I want to pick up where he commented on why Jesus didn’t go after His departing disciples. Read the rest of this entry »
This will be the first installment of a series of articles where I will give my answer to questions asked by John Martignoni in his newsletters. But before we get to the question on assurance of salvation, I would like to briefly share my encounter with John Martignoni.
In January 2009, John Martignoni responded to an article I wrote where he asked me a barrage of questions in response to my criticism of his assertion that oral tradition is responsible for the canon of Scripture. I was happy to answer all his questions sincerely and honestly. Since in his newslettesrs John tends to ask a lot of questions to his Protestant opponents and then berates them for not answering them, I wondered how he was going to respond to someone that addressed each and every one. But much to my surprise, I never heard back from him. I suspect the reason was that he was too nervous about being called out on the false information he presented to his some 30,000 newsletter subscribers.
Preeminent – the word garners attention whenever it is used, suggesting to the reader or hearer that something or someone is held in the highest regard. And when the word is used by a respected early church father with regard to the church, its meaning demands attention. And when the word is used in connection to a specific church, the church in Rome, attention it will get. Such is the case regarding a certain passage from the works of a beloved second century bishop named, Irenaeus.
Any Roman Catholic that has heard of Irenaeus will tell you that in his works against heresies, he explicitly referred to the church in Rome as being preeminent. “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [the church in Rome], on account of its pre- eminent authority.” For Roman Catholics, this statement is proof positive that the second century church regarded the church in Rome as preeminent to all the others. The problem for Roman Catholics, however, is that the “proof” falls apart when the quote is reunited with its context. Read the rest of this entry »
“If anyone comes and tells me they’re the church and I know that they’re not teaching the same thing as the church of 2000 years ago then I know it’s false.” (Dr. Sungenis)
The above quote is the philosophy of Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis who made this comment during a debate with Evangelical apologist, Matt Slick this past July.
Apparently Dr. Sungenis never applied his philosophy to his own beliefs, because if he did he would find his own church to be false. This is because none of the “oral [T]raditions” of the Catholic Church that Catholics are required to believe were known in the ancient church nearly 2000 years ago. And what are Catholics required to believe? Dr. Sungenis answers that for us:
“Any oral teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit to the apostles is our Oral Tradition that we must be obedient to.” (ibid)
So for anyone that might be considering joining the Catholic faith, here is a non-comprehensive list of doctrines Catholics are required to believe that did not exist in the apostolic and Ante-Nicene church; doctrines that according to Dr. Sungenis, were received by the apostles from the Holy Spirit and passed down to the church by oral tradition.
The Immaculate Conception
The assumption of Mary
Transubstantiation
Confessing sins to priests
Holy days of obligation
And the requirement to believe that the Roman bishop is infallible in regards to his proclamations concerning faith and morals.
I would love to hear from Catholics on this, especially apologists. Is Dr. Sungenis wrong, or is the Catholic Church teaching false doctrine?
Catholic apologist, John Martignoni decided to take his one-man apologetics show to You Tube. He intends to present a series called, “Questions Protestants can’t Answer.” He opens the series with this question: “Is a dead body really a body?” The analogy is that a body without a spirit is still a body though be it a dead body, and faith without works is still faith, but like a body without a spirit it is a dead faith.
So far very good and very biblical, but then Martignoni attempts to associate the doctrine of “faith alone” with dead faith. And how does Martignoni associate faith alone with dead faith? He doesn’t say. Martignoni offers nothing to support his accusation. Nevertheless he is willing to send his disciples out to confront Protestants with this accusation armed with nothing but ignorance and misconceptions.
Take a look.
If Catholics are going to confront Protestants on this issue, they better be prepared to talk about works, specifically works of the law.
Faith alone is a biblical doctrine and it refers to a living faith. Dead faith is faith that is not accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit, which is the works of God in us. There are indeed those who proclaim Christ yet lack the works of the Spirit in their lives, these have dead faith. But those who by faith have become a new creation in Christ are alive in Christ and Christ in manifested in them by the fruit they bear. When a person truly believes the Gospel of Christ they desire repentance, and in their repentance they change the way they talk, the way they treat others, and the way they perceive their neighbor. They begin to manifest the fruits of the Spirit, this faith is a living faith accompanied by good works.
Conversely, the Catholic view of faith plus works is entirely unbiblical. This view separates faith from works. If we apply this doctrine to the thief on the cross next to Jesus we have a conflict. In order for the thief to be saved, and we know he was, an exception has to be made to the Catholic doctrine. And if we are to say that a person can believe and be saved upon their deathbed we again have to make an exception to the doctrine. And again exceptions have to be made with regards to small children and the mentally handicapped. All this is proof that the Catholic doctrine of faith plus works is a doctrine of men.
In addition, the Catholic system, yes system, of salvation includes adherence to “canon law.” For example, if a Catholic does not go to mass on a day deemed mandatory by canon law, they supposedly commit mortal sin and are immediately removed from a state of grace. Then comes the exception; if they confess their “sin” to a priest and do the mandatory penance they can return to a state of grace.
Such laws were never intended to be imposed on Christians. Salvation by faith is accompanied by good works apart from any law. Catholics are told that their salvation is dependant upon following canon law, the Apostle Paul said,
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. against such there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22-23)
From the Catholic Answers website:
Posted by Brian Culliton 
One Fold Blog 