Josiah Concept Ministries

Fifteen thousand people attended the Mass this morning that exposed the remains of Padre Pio for public veneration.

I think that this is disgusting, personally. Already 750,000 people have made reservations to venerate the remains of the most popular saint of the twentieth century.

More than a million people are expected to file past a glass casket holding his restored corpse between now and the end of the year. Catholic practices allow for the remains of saints to be exhumed, checked for their state of deterioration, and put on display as relics for veneration. (source)

What are they venerating? Old flesh and dried bones. This is the object of their veneration. Jesus has said that the flesh is no help to us (Jn 6:63). It is His Spirit that gives us life. Jesus, therefore, should be the object of worship–not flesh and bone that can do nothing for us.

Catholicism seems to lend itself well to superstition. Reference the St. Joseph statue. A Catholic bookstore near my house sells these little novelty statues of St. Joseph with instructions that if you bury it on the property that you’re trying to sell, it will beseech St. Joseph to help the sale along.

Two articles surfaced in my newsreader this evening that reminded me of the propensity to superstition that Catholics seem to have. The first was a brief article on a request by Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek of Poland requesting that the heart of John Paul II be returned to the cathedral in Poland where the late Pope served as Cardinal.

Now, when I say the “heart of Pope John Paul II,” I literally mean his real heart.  Bishop Pieronek actually wants to exhume the late Pope’s body, remove his heart, and place it as a holy relic in the cathedral.  That way, pilgrims could venerate the heart.  I say, let sleeping Popes lie.

The second article speaks of papal merchandise being in high demand for the Pope’s upcoming U.S. visit.  Now by merchandise, this time I speak of more traditional merchandise like shirts, keychains, and Pope Benedict bobblehead dolls.  Apparently, the archdiocese of New York has set up a website where surfers can purchase any of this merchandise.

Again, two shining examples of Catholic superstition.  What can be gained from a man’s heart in a cathedral?  Nothing–Jesus tells us that the flesh is of no avail.  Though the archdiocese of New York says that spirituality is the goal of papal merchandise, I have to wonder if that is really true.  The goal of any merchandising is making money.  I think that most people know who Pope Benedict is, and therefore “proclaiming the Pope” is not a reasonable goal for this effort.

But it saddens me that Catholics want to proclaim their Pope rather than Jesus.  It is Christ who saves, not Pope Benedict XVI.

Five Roman Catholic Cardinals have written a letter to the other members of the College of Cardinals urging additional support in the form of signatures asking Pope Benedict XVI to define the fifth and final Marian dogma.  The suggested wording is thus:

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.

Let’s back up a second.  The four Marian dogmas that are already defined are the Divine Motherhood, the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.  The Divine Motherhood means Mary is called the Mother of God, or theotokos in the Greek.  The Perpetual Virginity means that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.  The Immaculate Conception means she was born without sin.  And the Assumption means that she was taken into heaven body and soul.

Now the Cardinals wish to define Mary as Co-redemptrix, which recognizes the unique role that she plays in the salvation of man.  Many people think that this a new teaching of the Catholic Church, but in reality it isn’t.  Dave Armstrong obligingly demonstrates that for us in this article.  This, in fact, has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for a very long time.

As Mediatrix of all graces, the Church will recognize that God’s grace flows to man through Mary.  She will also be defined as Advocate, which means that she presents the prayers of the faithful to her Son.   Armstrong argues that the world isn’t ready for these titles to be dogmatically defined because of the misunderstanding that they wrought.  I agree that they shouldn’t be defined, but for far different reasons than DA has given.

These titles detract from the singular glory of Jesus Christ.  Let’s look first at Mediatrix of all graces.  Grace flows not from Mary, but from God.  Not from God then to Mary then to us, but from God to us.  The Scriptures are very clear on this point: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (2 Cor 9: and “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).  Grace is God’s gift to us.  Period.

Advocate also detracts from the singular glory of Christ, for it is He that mediates prayers, not Mary to Him.  “[T]here is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

Finally, the letter to the Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that only one person could have made the ultimate sacrifice that pleased God and made atonement for the sins of mankind.  Only one person could “save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him” (Heb 7:25)

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Heb 7:26-2

Mary can’t do this for us.  Only Jesus can be this high priest, superior to the earthly priests, who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”  Mary is not that high priest, nor indeed can she be.

My podcast this Friday will be on how the Bible elevates women.  The Pope has spoken on this controversial topic as well, according to Catholic News Agency.  See the article here.  The Pope agrees with me:

Criticizing male chauvinism, discrimination against women, and the undervaluation of women, he called for Christians to promote “a culture that grants women, in law and in everyday life, the dignity that is theirs by right.”

Thank you, Benedict XVI.

It’s interesting how God defines himself. He told Moses that he is the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He did not define himself by his omnipotence or his omniscience but by his personal relationships with these common men. (source)

So reflects Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, leader of the Roman Curia’s Lenten retreat.  I think that is absolutely fascinating because for many skeptics, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are not only God’s defining characteristics, but the logical basis by which many of them reject Him.  The presence of an omnipotent and omniscient being can only lead to fatalism in their minds, regardless of the number of times that I’ve seen Christians refute this notion.

This is the ontological argument in reverse.  Because the skeptic cannot conceive of how an omnipotent and omniscient being could exist within the framework of this universe, no such being can exist.  Since God would be such a being, God does not exist.

But God doesn’t identify Himself on the basis of these characteristics.  He identifies Himself on the basis of His relationship to His creation.  How much more should we, then, identify ourselves on the basis of our relationship to Him.  I think that the real problem is that the skeptic is ruled by his sin–and his sin is how he defines “fun.”  Drinking, gambling, drugs, premarital sex–all of these things are “fun,” but all of these things have consequences.

Defining oneself on the basis of one’s relationship to God will have consequences, too.  One must focus his thoughts on what is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable  (Phil 4:8)–and it is easy to conclude even without a Bible (cf. Gal 5:16-24) that those things I just defined as “fun” from a secular point of view do not fit with that mode of thinking.

Defining oneself on the basis of a relationship with God brings with it freedom from sin (cf. Rom 6:14).  Paul exhorts us not to use that freedom for sin, “but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:13-14).

So, brothers and sisters in Christ, if God identifies Himself on the basis of a relationship to His creatures, why do the creatures not identify themselves on basis of a relationship to Him?

I should note before continuing with this series that I agree with Dave Armstrong that a visible church is spoken of in Scripture. I disagree with some of the evidence that he has offered–for example, applying Matthew 5:14-16 to the church rather than to the obedience of people. Overall, though, Dave and I are in agreement that the church should be a visible entity, not some quiet and mysterious “inner connection” between believers.

However, Dave is long way from proving that the Roman Catholic Church is supposed to be that visible church. Dave is even further from proving that the Pope is to be the head of this body, and he has failed to show that the Catholic Church is even organized biblically. In fairness to Dave, he isn’t trying to prove that with this post–he’s only trying to argue for a visible church. That the visible church is the Catholic Church is a presupposition of his argument. In the second part of his post, Dave looks at Protestant objections and answers them from his book, The One Minute Apologist. Let’s look at the objections and Dave’s answers.

Objection #1: “The notion that the ‘one true Church’ is a visible institution is a false tradition of men.”

Dave, or rather the One Minute Apologist, answers:

It is true that Catholics believe in an “invisible” Church in some sense: namely the mystical Body of Christ. We hold that all Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are part of the Church, however imperfectly. But from this it doesn’t follow that there cannot also be a visible, institutional body of believers whose members can be said to properly belong to Christ’s True Church. When Jesus and Scripture speak of the Church, it is usually in terms that suggest a tangible, specific, active presence in the world and in the community of believers:

Matthew 5:14-16: I’ve already answered that in my previous post.  This is talking about believers’ actions, not the church.

Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 3:15: I agree with Dave; these verses speak of a church that is active and visible in the world.

Some Christians seem to think that the Apostle Paul was a kind of “lone ranger,” not part of any Church but single-handedly (or with the help of a few friends) preaching and spreading the gospel. The Bible, on the other hand, recounts how Paul was subject to the direction and sanction of the institutional Church. He, too (even though he was an apostle, who wrote much of the New Testament), was under authority:

Now, who’s authority would we suppose that the apostle was under?  My guess is that he was under God’s authority, not the church’s authority.  Let’s see if Dave’s proof texts bear this hypothesis out:

Acts 13:1-4 and Acts 14:26-28: Definitely the Holy Spirit was sending Paul out in these texts.  This goes in the “Sorry, Dave, You Lose” column.

Acts 15:2-3,22-23,30: In this text, I don’t see that Paul and Barnabas are under the church’s authority; it seems as if they are cooperating with the church and its elders to select missionaries to help them.  We’ll put this in the middle column.

Galatians 1:18-19: No authority is taken or given in this verse.  We’ll put this one in the “Sorry, Dave, You Lose” column.

Galatians 2:9: Peter and James give Paul an equal hand and recognize him as an apostle.  Okay, I’ll put this into the “You Got One Right, Dave!” column.

Two strikes, a neutral, and one win for Dave in his proof texts.  But the story doesn’t end there.  What about the verses that Dave never considers, such as Galatians 2:11, where Paul opposes Peter–the very person who gave Paul the authority of apostle–because Peter “stood condemned?”  What about 1 Corinthians 14:37, where Paul says that the things he is writing are commands from the Lord–not from the church?

Paul certainly wasn’t in a vacuum apart from the other apostles, but he certainly wasn’t under the authority of the church the way that Dave supposes that he was.  Nor do I think any believer should be under the authority the church–otherwise, how could Paul claim we are all competent ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6a)?

Objection #2: “The words of Jesus Himself suggest that the Church is first and foremost invisible, not bound by denominational structures.”

More from the One Minute Apologist:

No, because Scripture also describes the unsaved reprobate as “sheep” (Ps. 74:1), refers to “sheep” that have “gone astray” (Ps. 119:176), and applies the description to the nation of Israel (Ezek. 34:2-3,13,23,30), and indeed, all men (Isa. 53:6). The overall biblical theme concerning “sheep” is in the sense that all men, and particularly Israel, are His children. But this doesn’t require an invisible Church or forbid a visible, institutional Church, because the latter is clearly indicated in the Bible.

I’ve already answered this one. This argument is an insult to the literary device of metaphor and assumes that the same metaphor can’t be used to convey different meanings in different context. Notice that each of Dave’s other examples come from different books of the Old Testament. All this shows is that sheep are useful as a metaphor for various groups of people.

To conclude, I agree that the church should be a visible entity within society, and it should be much more visible than it currently is.  But I think that we need to train people in church history and theology much better than we do, and that will alleviate a lot of the disillusioned people leaving the church for the comfortable delusion of atheism–or worse.  Dave’s article is woefully unconvincing that the Catholic Church is the only visible church, but I don’t think that he was really arguing that point, believing it to be a foregone conclusion.  In the end, Dave is supposing controversy where none exists, and it seems that the ultimate purpose of his post was to squelch a nonexistent controversy.  I think that most Protestants will agree with my conclusions in this article.

Dave Armstrong has a rather fascinating article on whether or not the church should be a visible or invisible entity. I thought I’d take a look at it as an exercise in putting Bible verses in proper context.

Most Protestants (especially evangelicals) see unity and oneness subsisting primarily or solely in the inner, invisible, spiritual unity of those who are in fact in Christ by virtue of being justified, or born again, or regenerated (with or without baptism, depending on denomination). For them, the church consists of the Spirit-filled, predestined elect, who will persevere and are saved, now and in eternity.

But Catholics see it differently, according to Dave Armstrong:

The Catholic Church has always proclaimed this unifying characteristic also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestantism), yet it doesn’t pit the Mystical Church against the institutional, or visible Church, as most evangelicals do. For Catholics, then, the issue of oneness is substantially related to organizational and practical aspects of ecclesiology. Catholics believe that the Church is both organism and organization, not merely the former. The Mystical and visible “churches” are like two circles which largely intersect, but which are not synonymous. They exist together - somewhat paradoxically and with tension - until the “end of the age.”

First of all, let’s look at this from a biblical perspective. The church has clearly been organized in the Bible with the offices of elder (Titus 1:5-6), bishop (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:7-9), and deacon (1 Tim 3:8-13). Nowhere does the Bible say that we are governed by a specific bishop of a specific city.

Dave continues:

At this point in the discussion Catholics appeal to the hierarchical, or episcopal (that is, under the jurisdiction of bishops) nature of Church government. Furthermore, Catholics maintain that this form is divinely-instituted and biblical, therefore not optional or of secondary theological importance.

Dave is already off base in claiming that the Catholic Church is “divinely instituted” and “biblical”. It isn’t organized as prescribed in Scripture. It has no elders, only a single monarch–the Pope.

Now Dave appeals to Matthew 5:14-16 as evidence that this church is to be visible. Let’s look at those verses really quickly, in their proper context. Jesus is talking to a group of people gathered for His famous Sermon on the Mount. He’s not talking to the church, He’s not talking to the apostles themselves. So these verses are not talking about the church.

The Sermon itself was all about the Law, and how the Law is impossible to follow. So a better fit for these verses is that they are talking about obedience to God. Why hide it? As St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” Let people see what it means to be a Christian first, says Christ in these verses.

Looks like Dave took those verses out of context to make his point.

Protestants often cite Jesus’ analogy of sheep and shepherd (John 10:1-16; cf. 2 Timothy 2:19, 1 John 2:19), who know each other (10:14), as evidence that the Church consists of the elect only. Yet the analogy breaks down when we find that Scripture also applies the term sheep to the unsaved reprobate (Psalm 74:1), the straying (Psalm 119:176), Israel as a nation (Ezekiel 34:2-3,13,23,30), and, indeed, all men (Isaiah 53:6).

When I say that I’m stuck “between a rock and a hard place,” I’m using a metaphor to convey something that would otherwise be difficult to put into words. This is the same thing that Christ is doing. The Bible also fairly consistently uses the Rock as God. Since Dave’s examples all came from different books of the Bible, that must mean that metaphors are universal everywhere and always, right? That means that when I say I’m stuck between “a rock and a hard place,” that I’m talking about God, right?

No, of course not. It means what it means, just as those metaphors from other books in wholly different contexts mean what they mean. This argument is an insult to the literary device of metaphor.

Other passages which presuppose a visible, identifiable, “concrete” Church include Matthew 18:15-17, in which believers are exhorted by our Lord to take errant and obstinate brothers to the church, which will then determine the appropriate verdict. It would be contrary to the tenor of the New Testament if this were a reference to a local church alone - even apart from the utterly impractical consequences of such a scenario (where the sinner would simply attend another denomination and move on with his life, as is tragically all too often the case today).

Here, Dave and I are actually in agreement.  It is a sad state of affairs when someone just goes to another church because he doesn’t like what his current church has to say about his sin.  But the Bible still isn’t supporting his case here, since the writers didn’t foresee the ability to hop from one McChurch to the next just because a person didn’t like what the current church said about some issue.  In those days, there was one church per town, and that was how they evidently thought it would stay.

But even then they had competing theologies; most of the New Testament is about correcting errors taught by heretics.  Back then they had people who read the Scriptures daily and knew theology much better than the average person today.  The average person today thinks that you have to be a good person to get to heaven and that Jesus is only one path of many!

No, people today aren’t schooled in the basics of theology.  That is the problem, not some imagined church authority, or lack thereof.

And St. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:15, describes the “church of the living God” as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” This statement is similarly almost nonsensical in the context of competing and often contradictory denominations. Where would a sincere, uninformed, unsophisticated religious seeker go to find this certain truth? Only within the sphere of a serious attempt at actual visible oneness of doctrine can this verse attain any pragmatic possibility.

And elsewhere, Paul seemed to encourage differences in doctrine (Rom 14:1-12), but concludes “. . . whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23b)–which merely reinforces the fact that it is faith that is the cornerstone here, not the church or denomination that one belongs to.

I will answer the material from the One Minute Apologist tomorrow.

Steve Ray has an interesting post about being born of water and the Spirit (Jn 3:5).  He lists nine places in the Bible where water and the Spirit represent new birth, and then concludes:

Too bad many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists refuse to see it but the Bible is pretty clear about new birth through the sacrament of baptism. Jesus is not ambiguous in this matter and he is alluding quite clearly to new beginnings in the Old Testament. The Early Church is also very clear and so is the teaching of the Catholic Church today.

We’re assuming that the seven Catholic sacraments are Biblical.  While the link provides an excellent argument against these seven sacraments, I should note that I believe very strongly in baptism, and I believe that it was commanded by our Lord Jesus that we should receive it.  I don’t believe that it is necessary for salvation–for that is by grace through faith.  Baptism is a clear command–it is one of the ways that we demonstrate our love for Him (Jn 14:15; 1 Jn 5:3), not a way He confers grace on us.

I agree with Steve Ray’s premise but cannot support his conclusion.  It would be interesting to track down the context of the Augustine quote to see if Ray is using it correctly.

Now don’t get me wrong–I’m not trying to downgrade the importance of baptism.  I just don’t agree that it is any more necessary than any other work for salvation.  Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-10).  The works we walk in are prepared by God for us to do; they are not the linchpin that saves us.  This includes baptism.  Walking in God’s commands shows our love for Him to the world–a witness without words.  Those who are in Him should be willing to do whatever He commands, and this includes being baptized.

Deus Caritas Est (25 Dec 2005)

Spe Salvi (30 Nov 2007)

I’m acting as secretary for the Vatican. See, I hate to read long articles while sitting at my computer screen. So I try to print them out if I can. The Vatican’s website didn’t have a very printable version of the Pope’s encyclicals, so I decided to make a Microsoft Word copy of the documents. For the benefit of my readers, I am making them available for download.

I knew that we’d see backlash from the atheist community when the Pope not only slammed atheism in the encyclical (see also here and here), and he blamed it for the worst tragedies of the 20th century. Kelly from the Rational Response Squad has offered a typical atheist reply. She plays all of the usual cards: the Inquisition card, the Crusades card, and the This-Doesn’t-Prove-God-Either-Way-So-Neener-Neener card.

Kelly does make a very good point. Historically, religious violence accounts for the vast majority of tragedies. She also states that violence committed by atheists was not committed for an atheistic agenda, but as a way to eliminate religious idealogues in order to strengthen the control of the government over the people. Read more »

Now I really can’t wait to read the new encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI.  Apparently, there is a new hymn to Mary:

At the conclusion of his encyclical released today, Pope Benedict honored Mary as our model of hope and asked for her intercession in showing us the way to the Father.

Using a title for Mary used for over a thousand years, the Holy Father explained how the “Star of the Sea” is our model for hope on our earthly journey.  He described the dark, turbulent waters that we face in life and the need to have a star as a guide to follow the route.

“Certainly, Jesus Christ is the true light, the sun that has risen above all the shadows of history.  But to reach him we also need lights close by – people who shine with his light and so guide us along our way.  Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us?” (source)

This is going to be an interesting read.