Many are ready to give a polite nod of some sort to Jesus of Nazareth. Most honor Him as a great moral teacher. Many even confess Him as Savior. But the Incarnation of the Eternal God? Second Person of the Holy Trinity? God can’t be one and three at the same time. Such a notion is at worst illogical, at best meaningless. “This was all invented by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 313 AD,” scoffs a motley crew ranging from the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Da Vinci Code.
Of course this charge has no historical leg to stand on. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven brief letters around 110AD in which he called Jesus “God” 16 times.
True, the word “Trinity” is not in the bible. But everywhere the New Testament refers to three distinct Persons who seem to be equally divine, yet one (see 2 Cor 13:14). So over 100 years before Constantine, a Christian writer named Tertullian coined the term “Trinity” as a handy way to refer to this reality of three distinct, equal Persons in one God. It stuck.
But if the doctrine of the Trinity is authentically biblical, is it relevant? Does it really matter?
If Christianity were simply a religion of keeping the law, the inner life of the lawgiver would not matter. But if Christianity is about personal relationship with God, then Who God really is matters totally. Common sense tells us that some supreme being made the universe and that we owe Him homage. But that this Creator is a trinity of Persons Who invites us to intimate friendship with Himself, we never could have guessed. We only know it because God has revealed it.
God is love, says 1 John 4:8 (see also John 3:16). If God were solitary, how could He have been love before He created the world? Who would there have been to love? Jesus reveals a God Who is eternally a community of three Persons pouring themselves out in love for one another. The Father does not create the Son and then, with the Son, create the Spirit. No, the Father eternally generates the Son. And with and through the Son, this Father eternally “breathes” the Spirit as a sort of personalized sigh of love. “As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.” That’s what the conclusion of the Glory Be really means, that the self-giving of the three divine Persons did not begin at a moment in time, but was, is, and is to come.
If we are truly to “know” our God, we must know this. But if we are ever to understand ourselves, we must also know this. For we were made in the image and likeness of God, and God is a community of self-donating love. That means that we can never be happy isolated from others, protecting ourselves from others, holding ourselves back selfishly from others. Unless we give ourselves in love, we can never be fully human. And unless we participate in the life of God’s people, we can never be truly Christian either. Because Christianity is about building up the community of divine love which is called the Church. If God is Trinity, then there really is no place for free-lance, lone-ranger Christians.
The family, the domestic Church, is a reflection of Trinitarian love — the love of husband and wife, distinct and very different persons, generates the child who is from them but is nonetheless distinct from them, indeed absolutely unique.
And that is the final point. One of the greatest treasures of Western culture is the concept of the uniqueness and dignity of the individual person. You really don’t find this idea in the ancient societies of Greece and Rome or in other great world religions, such as Islam.
The concept of the irreplaceable uniqueness of each person came into Western culture straight from the doctrine of the Trinity, three Who possess the exact same divine nature but Who are yet irreplaceably unique in Their personhood.
The irony? As it progressively abandons the triune God, the Western world is undermining the very foundation of personal dignity, individuality, and freedom.
So yes, the Trinity does matter.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
This is a very thoughtful article. However the idea of the Trinity developed over time, until in Nicea and Constantinople clearer definitions emerged.
“The Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) outlined the dogma of the Trinity” (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/trinityatnicea.htm).
Dr D’Ambrosio notes:
“One of the greatest treasures of Western culture is the concept of the uniqueness and dignity of the individual person.”
One must be careful not to over-emphasize the impoortance of the indivisual, as may happen in Protestantism and in the US.
God bless,
Noelfitz.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
(1) St. Ignatius of Antioch — Nowhere mentioned in the Bible.
(2) But everywhere the New Testament refers to three distinct Persons who seem to be equally divine, yet one (see 2 Cor 13:13). — “13 All the holy ones send you their greetings.” ( ? )
(3) “But if the doctrine of the Trinity is authentically biblical” — you never actually showed this….
(4) “If God were solitary, how could He have been love before He created the world? Who would there have been to love? ” — Angels.
(5) “Jesus reveals a God Who is eternally a community of three Persons pouring themselves out in love for one another. The Father does not create the Son and then, with the Son, create the Spirit. No, the Father eternally generates the Son. And with and through the Son, this Father eternally “breathes” the Spirit as a sort of personalized sigh of love. “As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.” — Citations?
(6) “If God is Trinity, then there really is no place for free-lance, lone-ranger Christians.” / “One of the greatest treasures of Western culture is the concept of the uniqueness and dignity of the individual person” — thats kind of contradictory.
You are very familiar with the bible verses referring to God’s love, and the citations are commendable. But to make such a great assertion about the quality of God, ceartainly must require more citations from his own word and not external sources. You are obviously very interested in your faith, which is very healthy… but continue to work at founding your faith in the scriptures. Vaya con dios, my friend : ).
May 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I would say, rather, that the importance of the individual must not overshadow the other vital aspect of the Trinity: the importance of community.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
To “maijinblack”: As a writer, I know the limitations of “available space” in an article. Considering a subject that could–and, has–filled several books, I think Dr. D’Ambrosio did a magnificent job.
Secondly, I perceive a strong “Sola Scriptura” in your remarks. If you’re going to read/post to a Catholic website, you are going to have to loosen your grip on your Bible, and open your mind to other possible sources.
Thirdly, I thought of “angels” as an answer to the one question, too….and rejected it because angels are created beings, like us. So, who would God have “loved” before He made angels?
And, finally, I AM the Lone Ranger. However, I do not have all the gifts I need in my possession (see 1 Cor.12 et al). The Gifts were given “to build up the Church”: I need to build up others, they need to build up me. It’s not a case of “either/or” but “both together”.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:02 am
That’s fair enough,
Although, aren’t Catholics… in fact all of us in search for the truth about God and the universe and everything. Dosn’t it seem reasonable then, if we want to learn about God, then we should go to the source, and not listen to what other men — inferior creatures — have to say about him. Afterall, one could reasonably quote Nietzsche and say “God is dead”, but that does not speak truth about his character.
God has given us his word which is “beneficial for every Good Work” (2 Tim 3:16), and the assumption is if we really use it, we can gain great benefit from it, can’t we? If we are going to start incorporating man’s thinking into our beliefs, why have a Bible at all? Especially when speaking to the nature of God… unless God’s word is somehow inaccurate?
I hardily agree with you that we are all individual members, serving the body of Christ, but we are commanded “not to go beyond the things written” (1 Cor 4:6), because if we do, we start to inject the imperfection of man into the perfect law which is the Bible. Why do you think there are 37,000 different protestant religions. Should they not be “of the same mind ” (Phil 2:2)? And yet, look at the divisions that exist because of catering to “the flesh” in some way or another. For real unity to exist then,. we must conform to the scripture (painful as it might be), and not it to us, No?
May 20th, 2008 at 7:52 am
maijinblack,
I have edited the scriptural reference and changed it to 2 Cor 13:14.
Angels are part of creation so that does not answer the question.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“how could He have been love before He created the _world_?”.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Hello maijinblack,
Peace in Christ!
What does Holy Scripture say is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth? Read (1 Tim. 3:15)
Since the Holy Scriptures in themselves do not include in it an index of included books, what authority do you trust in that selected the books that are to be included? And don’t just say the Holy Spirit, since we know many different faiths, including Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc… also Claim that the Holy Spirit Guides them. There has to be something external to the Bible itself that choose the books that belong, but which also is pointed to by the Bible. They confirm one another? There is a duality of Authority, both of which were established by Christ himself, in the Holy Scriptures, and his Holy Church. We know that the Bible has existed (the writings at least) since 70ish AD. There is only ONE Christian organization that can trace it’s existence back to the Time of Christ. It is the one who Christ put Peter as the head of when he told him
“And I tell you, you are Peter (Kepha in Aramaic), and on this rock (Kepha in Aramaic) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
There are three very important components to this statement by Christ that give it even more power:
1) Christ changed Simon Bar Jona’s Name to Peter. A name change by the Lord in Scripture ALWAYS signifies a specific and unique divine calling by God to that Person. Also, the Name Peter was unheard of in the region before this time.
2) The giving of the Keys is a direct inference to the Keys given to the “Steward” of the Davidic Kingdom. Ahishar was given the Keys as steward in Solomon’s kingdom, Arza was Steward for King Elah and so on etc… The concept of Steward over the Kings kingdom was very well understood by the Jews! They would have known exactly what this referenced. Jesus made a very Clear statement; Peter, you are my Steward of my kingdom in my absence. The Steward had all the Authority of the King in the Kings absence. Not only this, but the Keys of Stewardship were meant to be passed down. There was certainly no doubt of Peter’s role in the early Christian communities. Read the Church Fathers, and what they say is Peter’s role, and the role of the successive Stewards. No one in Christendom sincerely questioned this until 1054 and the Great Schism, which was largely influenced by the Muslim’s. They promised the Patriarch of Constantinople that he would be the Christian Leader, and be left alone to practice the Christian faith, if the severed ties with Rome. The rest they say, is history.
3) You say that the other Apostles were given authority to Loose and to Bind, and that’s true. But When Christ set Peter aside, changed his name AND gave him the Keys, it was obvious that he was giving him a role of primacy. So the other’s certainly had authority to Loose and to Bind, but it was Peter who had the Primal role for all Christians in this regard. This is also pointed out after the resurrection when Christ tells Peter “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. He is reaffirming his role, after Peter’s denial, that he was still the Steward in Christ’s absence. It was Peter who first preached the Good news, it was Peter who made the first infallible teaching about the cleanliness of all foods for eating, and the admission of Gentiles into the Christian Fold.
To get a proper understanding of the Bible, and how the Early Christians understood it, you need to read the Church Fathers (those Christian writings from the first 400years of Christianity, especially the first 200yrs). YOu will see that their understanding is Very Catholic. Once you read them, you will have a difficult time writing off Catholic teaching as merely, ‘made up by men’.
If however you reject all human interpretation of the bible, even the Church fathers, in effect you reject your own ability to properly understand Scripture. You say that there are 20,000 denominations and this is because of improper reading of scripture. Says who? You? So is your interpretation and those who agree with you the only valid interpretations? Show me in Scripture where you are assigned that role. Otherwise, I am sure all 20,000 denominations can make equally valid claims to their ‘Holy Spirit Inspired’ interpretations. Even Mormon’s and Jehovah’s witnesses claim that. We can only know their interpretations are wrong by referring to sources outside of scripture, that show how those to whom the scriptures were originally given, understood it. Scripture taken outside of it’s context, is a raft of confusion, conflicting statements, and curiously collected written works. In it’s context of the One, Holy, Cathoic and Apostolic Church established by Christ, it is the WORD that directs, corrects and enlightens the mind.
Refer to the following link for more information on this topic:
http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
In Christ,
Sandor
May 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You’re reasoning is flawless.
I trust in the Bible simply because if there is a God, and he really cared, as we assume, then he would make his instructions known to his people, and it would be in some sort of way that everyone would know about — just as he led the nation of Israel out of Egypt with many miracles, and a pillar of fire making it clear beyond all doubt that the one leading is in fact God himself. So how can we determine the Bible is really worth trusting?
1) Sheer numbers: The Bible in its current form has a rediculous distribution rate, more than any other book on the planet by far. No book is in circulation like the Bible is, not even close. If God cared about people, he would make his decrees known to everyone in a very obvious way, no?
2) Consistency: The Bible is written over a period of 1,600 years, by 40 different people, many of whom never met each other, and yet the contents of the Bible are consistent from Genesis to Revelation. That can’t be by chance.
3) The obvious power that it has in changing peoples lives….. if applied.
Where I see the major problem in many religions, is that many many people have reverance for the scriptures, but very few seem to really listen to the word.. just as Jesus said would be the case: (Mat 7). Consider a few examples:
* Muslims actually regard the Bible as a holy book, and they believe that the old testament and new testament are inspired just as the Koran is inspired. The caveat though, is that they believe that the Hebrew / Greek scriptures were contorted by the Jews and Christians (though, the dead sea scrolls bring this argument into question), so they listen the Koran over the Bible.
* Mormons say that the Bible referred to a coming book, which was revealed by Joseph smith and the ‘three witnesses’ who saw an angel and gave them a plate with which to translate these new scrolls. The majority of Mormons that you ask will tell you that “the Bible has contradictions”. If you believe this, then you are really free to believe anything. Again, a reverence for scripture, superceded by the word of man.
* Jewish people also believe in the Bible, but not in Jesus, so although they accept the first half of the Bible, they reject the second half.
The point I am trying to make, is that many people believe in the Bible, but there is always this caveat exception thrown in to make the scriptures invalid(Mat 15:1-9). Yet when Jesus came, it was so that he would live a life in full adherence to the scripture, not to run contrary to it (Mat 5:17-19). If it is scriptual, it MUST be in harmony with the rest of the scripture, otherwise it must not be from God. Jesus was, we must be too.
That said, what you say about Peter is entirely correct, and he was used mightily in the outworking of God’s will. However, the question is, can a person lose his standing before God? Consider:
* Samson: he was a “Nazirite from Birth”, and yet, when he ran contrary to the law regarding a Nazirite (he cut his hair [reference the requirements for naziritehood on wikipedia]), his divine backing was IMMEDIATELY revoked, no?
* What about Solomon, he had God given wisdom, and a great kingdom — during the time he acted in accordance to God’s law — but this was all taken away from him when he began to listen to his wives and make idols for all of their many Gods.
* Adam was also likewise punished for his disobedience.
… all of these at one point faithful men, but when they ran opposed to the decrees set by God, they lost his approval.
So then, if a person can lose their approval? What about a group of people? What about the nation of Israel, were they not rejected because they _first_ rejected the laws of God? Given to a nation “producing its fruits” (Mat 21:43). It is dangerous to believe that because we belong to an organization, regardless of whether it is JW, Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, we must not believe this will save us. Remember the exchange between the Jews (the decendents of Abraham) and John the Baptist, where he said “So then produce fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves ‘As a father we have Abraham.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise children to Abraham from these stones” (Mat 3:8). The organization should keep us encouraged to continue to do the _work_ of God, but the onus is on us individually to actually “doing the will of the Father who is in the heavens”. (Mat 7:21-23 / Mat 28:18-20). Remember, he will seperate the people “one from another” not group by group (Mat 25:19-33).
May 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
maijinblack,
What I meant is that the answer “angels” doesn’t respond to the ontological point. if God IS love, what did he love before He created the angels? The point is that since God IS love, He could not have been waiting to love until after He created. He had to be able to love within His own being. Otherwise, it might be right to say that God is loving, but not that He is love. And such a God would be dependent on His own creatures.
As for your most recent post — the Catholic Church is not a mere organization, it is an organism — a body. It is unique in having from Christ a promise of indefectiblity. The Church as a whole will never leave the truth and we as individuals will never endanger our salvation by adhering to her teaching on faith and morals. Quite the contrary, the surest way to secure our souls is to listen to her apostolic authority. As Christ said to the apostles: “He who hears you, hears me.”
Where do you personally stand on the matter of the Diety of Christ and the Holy Trinity?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“If God IS love, what did he love before He created the angels? … The point is that since God IS love, He could not have been waiting to love until after He created.” (In reference to 1 John 4:8).
This is truly a beautiful question. And you are right, in order to express this divine quality, there had to be someone to express his love towards. So then the question boils down to, in the beginning were Jesus and the Holy Spirit God? Or were they seperate?
Remember God’s oath to Abraham (Gen 17:7-8):
7 “And I will carry out my covenant between me and you and your seed after you according to their generations for a covenant to time indefinite, to prove myself God to you and to your seed after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land of your alien residences, even the entire land of Canaan, for a possession to time indefinite; and I will prove myself God to them.”
Does that not say that they would be his people “to time indefinite”? Yet because of their own disobedience it was taken away from the physical nation of Israel, and given to the “Israel of God” mentioned in (Gal 6:16). Their ability to stay in God’s favor rested upon their obedience to God’s commands (Gen 17:9). That is the very reason that you and I are given a chance… isn’t it?
Note what Paul said in (Romans 9:6, 7)
“6 However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed are they all children.”
and further (vs. 14-16)
“14 What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God? Never may that become so! 15 For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy upon whomever I do have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I do show compassion.” 16 So, then, it depends, not upon the one wishing nor upon the one running, but upon God, who has mercy.” — It is not us that dictates to whom God will have mercy, nor to what group we belong to.
Is this not in line with the criticism Jesus gave to the seven congregations in Asia Minor (Rev 2)? To whom he said: “‘5 Therefore remember from what you have fallen, and repent and do the former deeds. If you do not, I am coming to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent”. Was this not one of the original Catholic congregations he was speaking to?
Judas was one of the original 12 apostles, and yet, just as assuredly as he was removed, do you not think that we too can suffer the same fate for disobedience?
May 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hello maijinblack
Peace in Christ,
What you are saying is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches! The Church has consistently taught, from the very beginning, that just belonging to the Faith and being baptized is not what saves you, but living the faith, in Jesus Christ is what saves. Read the teachings of the Church, you would be amazed how much you actually agree with the Catholic Church’s teachings in this area.
In fact, one of the greatest flaws of the “Born Again, Once saved always saved” ideology, is it rejects the ability of people to fall from Grace, even after a sincere conversion. St. Paul himself spoke of struggling to maintain the faith, and stated that even he, who had lives so faithfully, had to be on gaurd so as to not loose the faith and fall into sin at the very end of his life. This is right in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Regarding the Gospels. The Catholic Church teaches that the Old Testement prefigures the New, and the New testament fulfills the Old. The Church also teaches that they have the primacy of teaching authority, and that the Church, Science and Tradition can never be counter to the Gospel’s. That’s how Highly the Church holds Sacred Scripture. But, like any act that involves human, context is the key to understanding. If you don’t know the context of the crucifixion, and you see an artistic rendering of the crucifixion, it would seam outright bizarre! If you don’t understand the Context of the last egyptian plague, God looks like a cruel and hateful God. If you don’t understand the context of the Bible, and it’s intended purpose and audience, you cannot understand properly the Gospels. The Context of the Gospels is the era in which they were written, considering the historic context and how the writters would have understood the words they wrote. The Purpose of the Gospels is to relate to use God’s plan of salvation for our souls, so that we can Love him, serve him and be happy with him for eternity in the next life.
Another point, remember Christ’s words regarding the ‘teachers of the Law’ in Jerusalem. He made a point to tell the crowd (and I paraphrase) ‘you must follow what they teach, because they sit on the seat of moses, but don’t do as they do, because they are hypocrites’. Christ was making the specific point that there were Jewish leaders that had authority to interpret the Law, and apply the law, because their position was established by God himself (the seat of Moses). He didn’t object to their teaching, what he objected to was their hypocrisy. They didn’t practice the very thing that they taught.
So since Christ recognized himself, that the Jewish Faith had established leaders, can you believe that he intended the same thing for his Church?
You are right that just being a baptized Catholic, and therefore a ’self professed’ member of the Catholic Faith will not gaurantee salvation. But, it is also true, as the Church teaches, that the Normative means for salvation, established by Christ is a Holy Life, made possible through sincere reception of the sacraments, living a Holy Life in obedience to the teachings of Christ as taught by the Catholic Church. Just as God promised the Jewish People that they would be given their promised land, not all saw it because of disobedience. Christ established the Catholic Church for the salvation of mankind, but not all who profess to be Catholics, actually live the faith as taught by the Church. That faith is in essentials, the same as practiced by the 1st century Church, the 2nd Century ……21st century Catholic Church. The agenda of the Catholic Church is the agenda of Christ. To Know God, to Love God, to Serve God here on earth, so that we can be happy with him in eternity in the life to come!
Just a few quick things to ask yourself. What did the early Church teach about the following things:
1. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
2. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
3. The Authority of the Church in teaching
4. Belief in the Saints in Heaven and their ability to intercede on our behalf
5. Belief in Mary as Ever virgin
Check these out, and see if these teachings in the early Church were more similar to the Catholic Teaching today, or the myriad of protestant teachings on these topics.
In Christ,
Sandor Gyetvai
May 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
So much of what you have said is really the truth. And in fact I have no beef with any person from any religion, God gave his word so that the one who follows it would be saved (Joel 2:32). But in order to have any standing at all before God, who is holy, we too must make ourselves holy — cleansing ourselves as it were with the scripture. I feel that just as a man must shower daily to remove physical filth, we must also read Gods word continuously to learn how to clense ourselves of ‘every defilement’ (1 Cor 6:9-11 / 2 Cor 7:1). But in order to be cleansed, we need to allow the water to penetrate as it were…. in what way?
Considering the Teachings you listed above, I’ve accumulated some scriptures that I have found in relation to the beliefs of the first century Christians:
1. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
(Gen 9:3,4) [God’s word to Noah] “3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.”
(Lev 17:13, 14): 13 “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” (Would God go against his own command?)
2. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
(Mat 23:8-12): “8 But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
3. The Authority of the Church in teaching [I agree with this]
(Heb 13:17) “17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among YOU and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over YOUR souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to YOU.”
4. Belief in the Saints in Heaven and their ability to intercede on our behalf
(Ec 9:5,6): “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.”
(Ec 9:10): “All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.”
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol]
Jesus himself said that:
(John 5:28, 29) “28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.”
And in regard to Lazarus:
(John 11:24-25) 24″Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life;” (Mary’s viewpoint was that Lazarus would be resurrected on the last day, but no sooner).
5. Belief in Mary as Ever virgin
(Mat 13:54-56): “And after coming into his home territory he began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said: “Where did this man get this wisdom and these powerful works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did this man get all these things?” ”
****
There are many beatifful things about Catholicism, but I must take exception in that the things taught are not entirely supported by scripture… which is not a big deal, every day that I read, I continue to have my understanding of God re-adjusted. The major block for me, is that in view of such things, the likelihood of the organization making any sort of adjustments is slim, because if it has been around for so long… why should it? So just as if I had a friend that would not respond to biblical direction, I would not keep him in close company, likewise I would not willfully subject myself to an organization that I do not feel is adjusting to continuous refinement by the scripture.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 am
Hello maijinblack,
Peace in Christ,
I have to make this brief, because I am getting up early in the morning for a business meeting.
1. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
What did Jesus Christ say? Read John 6:41-70
Did Jesus try to correct those who left him when he said they must actually eat his body and drink his blood? He did not say “Wait, I am speaking symbolically”. In fact, he emphasizes that we must believe in his true presence in the Eucharist when he states to the Apostles “Will you leave me too?”
2. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
First off, I presume you never call your natural male parent Father correct? I also presume you never call any of your school instructors teacher right? If you do, then you are being a bit hypocritical. Do you know that Paul called himself Spiritual Father of those Christians whom he had baptized. Was he incorrect in saying this? This is the same sense that we call our Priests ‘Father’ and the Bishop who sits on the seat of Peter Pope (which means papa). If it’s OK for Paul, we just assume it’s OK. Are we wrong? Why?
3. The Authority of the Church in teaching
Won’t reiterate what I previously mentioned.
4. Belief in the Saints in Heaven and their ability to intercede on our behalf
Read Revelations 5:8. The Elders are obviously People who are now in heaven. They bring prayers of the “holy ones” who are the prayers of Christians on Earth. This passage very clearly shows that Those in heaven with Christ, to in fact bring prayers of the Christians on Earth before Jesus Christ.
5. Belief in Mary as Ever virgin
I will just point out that both 1st Century Greek, and more importantly, first century Aramaic, did not have a word that distinguished brother from cousin. More importantly, it is very Likely, based on very early Church tradition, that Joseph was a widower, with previous children when he married Mary. Considering the linguistic possibility that these ‘brothers’ mentioned were either step brothers or cousins of Jesus, our only way of getting more clarity would be to reference early Church teaching. There is documented evidence that as early as 120AD, Christians clearly believed that Mary remained a virgin for the entirety of her life. I will honestly admit that there is not absolute clarity on this issue from Holy Scripture. I will admit that my acceptance of this teaching largely hinges on two things. My belief that Christ established a Church with teaching authority, headed by the successor of Peter. And my belief that we can understand the context of Scripture more clearly by reading what those Christians believed who were closer chronologically to Christ than we are.
All I ask is that you accept in Christian Charity that Catholic teaching on these topics (except #5) have strong biblical support. Regarding #5, I ask that in Christian Charity, that Catholic teaching is plausible. It obviously is possible for someone to remain a virgin for the entirety of their life. So is it so hard to accept that these brothers mentioned in Scripture are actually step brothers or cousins? In Christian Charity, I would ask that you accept it as a possibility, since we cannot know from Holy Scripture alone which is in fact true.
In Christ,
Sandor Gyetvai