Infallibility - what it is and what it isn't

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An old school friend, who still attends the Baptist church that we attended as teenagers, recently asked me, as a Catholic, to explain Papal Infallibility. As part of his question, he linked the following article providing a not unusual apologetic against the Catholic Church’s teaching on this topic:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2594

I responded in two parts to my friend – the first part explaining what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Papal Infallibility (which follows below); and the second part was my response to Moises Pinedo’s article, which you can view by clicking here.

Papal Infallibility is often misunderstood by Protestants. Many Protestants think that Papal Infallibility means that the Pope can’t sin (that’s not infallibility; that’s impeccability); others think that it means that the Pope cannot believe or teach heresy in any way, shape, or form. Both of these notions are incorrect.

To start with, it’s important to understand that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Rather, it exists within the context of a broader understanding of the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Christ entrusted His Church with the threefold office of teaching, governing, and sanctifying. In respect of the teaching office (or Magisterium), Christ who is the Truth, in His grace blessed the Church with a share in His infallibility. He did this to fulfil His promise that He would remain with and preserve His Church with the purity of faith handed down from by the Apostles. In this gift, we also see the goodness of God who gives us as Christians an objective guarantee of being able to profess the true faith without error.

So that this role of the Magisterium could be fulfilled, Christ has blessed the Church with the gift of infallibility when it definitively makes declarations regarding matters of faith and morals.

The key thing to understand here is that the Church’s infallibility is completely and utterly a gift of God’s grace.

There are a few ways in which this infallible teaching office, or Magisterium, can be exercised. One of them is when the Church gathers in an Ecumenical Council. The other is in reference to the Bishop of Rome, as the Successor of St. Peter (the Rock upon whom Christ built His Church and gave the keys of the kingdom) and the visible head (or representative) of Christ (who is the true Head of the Holy Catholic Church). The infallibility “enjoyed” by the Bishop of Rome (or the Pope) is limited only to statements that he makes “Ex Cathedra” or “from the Chair” (of St. Peter to be precise). In these statements, and these statements alone, is he guaranteed to be preserved by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

There are certain conditions required for a Papal statement to be considered as “Ex Cathedra”, but without going into depth regarding these, suffice it to say that it MUST be clear to everybody that it is the intention of the Pope that he is making a definitive “Ex Cathedra” statement.

With this in mind, it is clear that the personal writings or opinions of any given Pope are not infallible. Pope Benedict XVI, in his first book on “Jesus of Nazareth”, admitted as much when he said that his book was “in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my [i.e. Josef Ratzinger’s] personal search for the face of the Lord”.

In this way, when Popes express their personal views on anything they are just as infallible as the next person. That’s not to say that he won’t get it right...but, it’s also not to say that he won’t get it wrong.

Whilst the Church doesn’t adhere to a doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), it does adhere to the doctrine of Sola Verbum Dei (the Word of God alone). Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that the Word of God is not limited to Scripture, but Scripture certainly plays an extremely important role in the life of the Church. And since God is One, and there is only One Truth, it is impossible for any teaching of the Catholic Church to be contrary to Sacred Scripture. The reason Protestants don’t see this is because they interpret the Bible differently to Catholics. In addition, not only does Catholic doctrine not contradict Scripture, but based on the correct interpretation of Scripture (the same interpretation used by the Church since the time of the Apostles, through the Early Church Fathers, up until today) it can be shown that all Catholic doctrine has a basis in Scripture. In respect of the infallibility of the Church, consider the following texts:

• Matt 16:17 – St. Peter’s profession of faith; which was revealed to Him by the Father – this is not unlike what the Catholic Church continues to teach regarding the Successor of Peter – that when he makes a definitive statement regarding faith, he is enlightened by God to do so.
• Matt 28:18-20 – Jesus promised that He would remain with the Church until the end of the ages. And we would both agree that the Lord Jesus would have no union with heretics (e.g. Rev 2 & 3). If this is true, and Jesus Christ never left His Church, then the Church never fell into heresy (despite what the Protestant Reformers thought).
• John 14:16, 25; 16:13 – Jesus told His disciples that He would send the Holy Spirit to be with the Church FOREVER and guide the Church into ALL truth...the Protestant view which says the Catholic Church fell into heresy basically implies (whether it wants to or not) that Jesus lied on both these points.
• Jn 11:49-51 – Ananias is granted the gift of true prophecy even though his intentions were not good. Interestingly, St. John ties this gift to his office as high priest.

Now, I suppose the claim can be made that Catholics are misinterpreting these (and other) passages of Scripture. So, how do we know what the Apostles meant when they penned the New Testament? Well, we go the witness of their disciples, the Church Fathers...and what do we see? The same thing i.e. that the interpretation followed by the Catholic Church today remains faithful to the tradition and interpretation handed down to the Fathers by the Apostles:

“For the Lord received anointing on His head in order that He might breathe incorruptibility on the Church. Do not be anointed with the evil odour of the teachings of the prince of this world...” – St. Ignatius, AD110

[Notice that the incorruptibility Christ breathed on His Church is in the context of, and in contrast to, the false teachings of the prince of this world.]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate the succession [from the Apostles] of all churches, we shall here point out the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul....For with this Church [i.e. with the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her [i.e. the Church of Rome] that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” – St. Irenaeus, AD180

“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the Apostle was mistaken in bearing witness; that the Holy Spirit had no such consideration for any one Church as to lead it into truth, although He was sent for that purpose by Christ, who had asked the Father to make Him the Teacher of truth; that the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ neglected his office, and permitted the Churches for a time to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself had preached through the Apostles: now, is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into a unity of faith?” – Tertullian, AD200

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [i.e. Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” – St. Cyprian, AD252

In the understanding of the Church Fathers, the Church of Jesus Christ which had descended from the Apostles, by way of Apostolic Succession, was (and is) not able to fall into heresy. Not because the Church is so wonderful; but rather because of her infallible Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, who promised that He would be with His Bride throughout all the ages, protecting her and nourishing her. To deny the doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church is nothing less than to deny the gracious gift that Jesus Christ has given His Most Holy Bride.

Why I Became Catholic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been Catholic for three years now, having been received into the Church in the Easter Vigil of 2010. My journey home to the Holy Catholic Church was more theological than it was emotional. That’s not to say that there was no emotion involved – there certainly was. But the main catalyst that the Lord used to bring me home was theology.

For some time now, a few people have asked me to post my conversion story on my blog page, but because of the depth of theological controversy that I encountered along the way, I have up until now shyed away from it.

But, towards the end of last year I finally gave in and decided that I was going to put pen to paper and to put together something of a “testimony” of my conversion from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.

Well, I spent about three weeks just working on the draft……….which was 15 pages long……….in short-hand……….and that wasn’t even delving into all the reasons for my theological shifts. Then I started typing……….and I found that 2 pages of my short-hand notes equated to about 5 pages of type……..

Needless to say, I started rethinking whether I actually wanted to finish the work of my conversion story, which for most people would probably just end up being long, dry, and boring. But, that’s when I found something that I had completely forgotten about.

When I first started taking the steps of being received into the Catholic Church, a few of my non-Catholic Christian friends were shocked, and one or two of them actually took the time to e-mail me and ask me about my reasons. My response to them back then was short and succinct, so I thought what better way to share the story of my conversion that to let the three-year-ago version of myself tell the story…so, here goes….

We most certainly expected lots of eyebrows to raise at our move [to the Catholic Church], but I can assure you that we were not looking forward to it. In fact, it was one of the things that made us a bit apprehensive about becoming Catholic...we expected that most of our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters would end up writing us off as apostates. There is little more one could expect given the massive misconceptions amongst Protestants as to what Catholics believe. Anyway, our hearts were finally settled when the local parish priest reminded us that when we stand before God in judgment, His concern is not going to be others - we must give our own account for our own selves. What also helped was that as we delved more and more into Catholic teaching we saw more and more of Christ, and we fell more and more in love with the Church that he founded 2,000 years ago and through the Traditions handed down from the Apostles continues to stand the test of time. There is no other institution on earth that could go through what the Catholic Church has been through and still be going strong today...unless it was guarded and protected by God Almighty.
 
There is no one particular reason why my wife and I became Catholic. Rather there are so many of them that we could go on forever. So, rather than being cumbersome with all the details, I have tried to highlight to the best of my ability some of the more pertinent things that influenced us. As I look back and reflect, I can clearly see how the Lord has led us to the Catholic Church even though we were completely oblivious to His plan all along.
 
The seeds for our conversion were probably planted way back when we were part of a dispensational independent Baptist church in South Africa. The pastor, who is still the “chief elder” there, is an excellent Bible teacher. I will always remember the most important things that he has always stressed in his ministry:

• never take anything for granted – always study the Scriptures
• love the Lord Jesus with everything that you are - this means that obedience to Christ will often take us where we would never dream of going 
• love the Church because this is what Christ loves and died for

When we were still in our dating years, my now-wife and I left South Africa and moved to New Zealand…and when we left, we were far from being obedient Christians. But we weren't in New Zealand for long before God brought us back to Himself. We got involved in a local dispensational independent Baptist church and everything was going along just fine. I was appointed as a deacon in the church, and I was working closely with the pastor with the intention of training for the pastorate. That was until an old friend from the Baptist church in South Africa told us that their church had gone through a major eschatalogical shift based on a verse-by-verse exposition of Matthew 24. Well, I studied and studied and studied Matthew 24 and ended up coming to the same conclusions as them. This was a massive problem in our Baptist church in New Zealand, because the pastor (and his Mission Board) was committed whole-heartedly to dispensationalism. To cut a long story short, we were basically forced out of the church...and so started our journey to find the fullness of truth.
 
As horrible as the experience of being forced out of a congregation that we loved was, it was a good opportunity for us to really challenge a lot of things that we had taken for granted. As I studied, I was becoming more and more influenced by Reformed thinking - which led us to start fellowshipping with Reformed Baptists. But, as I got deeper into Reformed theology, a lot of my previous theology started to unravel.
 
I became convinced that baptism by immersion was not the Scriptural mode of baptism, but rather baptism by sprinkling. However, I still maintained that one should only be baptised after making a profession of faith. So, you could say that I was a sort of Anabaptist of the Reformation...believer's baptism by sprinkling. Be that as it was, I respected the authority of the local Reformed Baptist church and wasn't going to make it an issue of fellowship. That was until our understanding of the covenant became more focused.
 
As I began to understand the idea of covenant, I saw that “believers' only” baptism wasn't biblical either. Rather, the very essence of covenant necessitates that our children are included, and so I became fully Reformed i.e. I now held to the teaching of the Reformers (like Calvin and Luther) that infant baptism was Scriptural. This was opposed to my thinking of so many years that the Reformers maintained infant baptism simply because they couldn't let go of that old Romanistic teaching (oh, how ironic when I look back now). Again, it wasn't an issue of fellowship until it became an issue of obedience i.e. we only left the Reformed Baptist church when our first daughter was born so that we could (in obedience to Christ) have her baptised as a full member of God's covenant.

Being fully Reformed, I delved more and more into Reformed theology, with particular focus on the spearhead of the Reformation i.e. Sola Scriptura. In addition, John Calvin became a big focus because, of all the Reformers, I believed he had the best grasp on the issues. Of particular significance to me was the Reformed teaching on worship - particularly the Regulative Principle i.e. that God should only be worshipped as commanded in the Scriptures; anything not commanded in the Scriptures was forbidden. As the Regulative Principle, firmly based on Sola Scriptura, began to take hold in my thinking I started to see that Reformed Christians incorporated things into their worship that weren't commanded; and not only that, but they even disagreed amongst themselves about the interpretation of the Regulative Principle. Mostly, I think that this was due to most Reformed Christians not understanding their own principles of the elements of worship and the circumstances of worship. According to traditional and conservative Reformed scholars things like what is sung and accompaniment were elements of worship and should find commandment in the Scriptures before being done. After intense study, I was convinced that singing hymns, choruses, etc. in corporate worship was not in accordance with the Regulative Principle - only the Psalms were to be sung (the strongest argument for this position coming from Col 3:16 & Eph 5:19). I also became a strong proponent for a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper and ultimately agreed with the teaching that children (as full members of the covenant) should also partake. I had solid biblical arguments for my convictions, and I brought these up with pastors from time to time. After all, the cry of the Reformed is supposed to be "reformed and always reforming".

It was frustrating (and also interesting in hindsight) because the responses I received were hardly biblical. In fact, one Reformed pastor made the comment to me that the Regulative Principle is simply a "wax-nose" that can be moulded any which way that you desired. The objections raised to my points ultimately ranged from what was practical - to a different flavour of Reformed tradition (e.g. Puritan vs. Continental). And this was from men who were thoroughly committed to the Sola Scriptura and Reformed teaching.

To my biblical arguments I began to add the argument of Reformed Tradition (particularly Calvin) and when it suited me, the Early Church Fathers. After all, they were much closer to the Apostles, and where they agreed with Scripture, we could validly use them as support. What I failed to realise was that my interpretation of the Scriptures was different from the Fathers…but what I did realise (and it became more and more frustrating) was that every Christian interprets the Scriptures differently. 

After many theological discussions on the Regulative Principle and the numerous interpretations held by so many different Reformed Christians and denominations, I became completely disillusioned with it. After all, how regulative can a principle be when it is always relative? And so I discarded the Regulative Principle because it truly is a wax nose.
 
By God's providence, at around the same time I had been in contact with a Reformed Episcopilian priest. In my discussions with him, he helped me to see the value of tradition in the history of the Church (but specifically in the Anglican way of only wanting to accept the first 5 centuries).
 
He also helped me to see the importance of the succession of authority in the Church. He showed me that towards the end of his ministry, John Calvin regretted the way that he had tampered with church government, and how he hoped to restore an episcopal order in the church so that the various churches in Europe that had arisen due to the "free thinking" of the Reformation could be united. Calvin actually approached the Church of England in an attempt to have ordinations in Europe recognised so that there could be a valid line of succession from the Apostles. But his letters were intercepted by certain English bishops who were supporters of the Catholic Church and they [Calvin’s letters] never found their way to their intended destination.

 

Up until this point, I understood that a valid church could not be started unless someone had authority to start that church by those in authority e.g. I couldn't simply start my own church because I couldn't find a church that agreed with me. I would only be able to start a church if I had been validly sent by a church ministry which had the authority to send. But I never worked this understanding to its logical conclusion i.e. where did John Calvin get his authority from? All Protestant pastors (perhaps with the exception of some Anglicans, depending on who you are talking to) can only trace their authority back as far as someone who somewhere along the line assumed authority for himself. That's when I realised that the Reformers had no right whatsoever to leave the Church of Jesus Christ and assume their own authority in setting up churches according to their own whims. Unfortunately, that is what happened. And every single Christian denomination that has set itself up since then has at some point adoted a self-appointed authority. What's more, almost every single Protestant denomination claims to base their system of beliefs on Sola Scriptura. However, what I came to realise is that "Sola Scriptura" really means "Sola Scriptura as I interpret it". So, the Sola Scriptura is nothing more than My Interpretation Alone (or my pastor's interpretation for that matter). In this way, Sola Scriptura is also a wax nose.

What is really interesting is that the Scriptures never actually teach Sola Scriptura. Nor do they teach that the Scriptures are for private individuals to interpret. Yet, private interpretation since the Reformation has led to the formation of over 35,000 denominations. I doubt whether this was Christ's intention in His High Priestly prayer when He prayed that the Church would be one. 

That's when I really started to dig into the early Church. How could we as Protestants, almost 2,000 years removed from the facts, determine what Christ and His Apostles meant when they lived. The Church Fathers, much closer to the Apostles, and some of them even personal disciples of the Apostles, began to hold much more weight in how I should read and understand the Scriptures.

The Anglican priest I mentioned also helped me to be far more gracious towards Catholics. He showed me that we can call them brothers and sisters in Christ even though we disagreed with a lot of their teachings. He pointed out that a lot of what we thought Catholics believed were misconceptions and required a bit more of an understanding of things from their perspective. Well, that was okay and I was happy to accept it. I accepted Catholics as potential brothers and sisters in Christ, but it would snow in the Sahara before I would dream of becoming one. And at that point I had no real interest in finding out more about the Catholic faith. Instead, we became Anglicans because it meant that could stay reformed (rather than Reformed) and adopt a form of catholicity (in the Anglican sense of the word). It was kind of a middle ground that maintained that the Catholic Church was still in serious error.

Being Anglican in NZ was interesting. There were things that we didn't agree with (e.g. ordination of women) but we felt that the spirit of Christ compelled us to be gracious and humble, leading by example and prayer for change. But it wasn't long before we saw that this approach simply wouldn't work in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion worldwide is under huge attack from liberals who want to have the worldwide Communion adopt ordination of homosexuals. In some Provinces it is already accepted...and in others it is seriously rejected. I personally think that this will ultimately lead to a split in the Anglican Communion. What was a real eye-opener for us was how powerless the Archbishop of Canterbury was/is in this whole fiasco. Scripture and the historic traditions are completely against homosexuality, and yet the Anglican Church which claims to hold to the Scriptures, and some of historical tradition (in varying degrees depending on which Anglican you speak to), is powerless to do anything about these liberal Anglicans who threatened to destroy the Anglican Church. I started to appreciate the idea of having an authoritative figure like the Pope but I still wouldn't have dreamed of calling him my authoritative figure. However, it did start to perk my interest a little more.... 

Oneday, I was reading the newspaper and I stumbled across an advert for the Catholic Enquiry Centre in NZ - inviting people to obtain some free material to tell them more about Christianity in general and the Catholic faith in particular. Well, I was now interested enough to find out exactly what it was that Catholics believed. The reading material arrived and I just couldn't put it down. I was awestruck at how Christ-centred Catholic teaching was, and I couldn't believe how much of Catholic teaching was pretty much in line with some of my own thinking. The difference was that there seemed to be something in Catholic teaching that I was missing all along...something vital, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. Well, this has to be a smoke-screen I thought. It can't be true - it's a decoy to entice unsuspecting and naive Christians into the Catholic Church. So, I started reading more...I started listening to more Catholic teachers. Well, it wasn't long and the holes started appearing on the wrong side of the argument. All the holes were in the Protestant position. The Catholic position was SOLID. The Protestant position became shakier and shakier and eventually crumbled like a house of cards. Somewhere along that line I finally realised that Protestantism was built on a foundation of sand; and I found that it was the Catholic Church that was built upon the foundation of rock. The final straw that broke the camel's back was finally being shown that the Scriptures are not the pillar and foundation of the truth - simply because the Scriptures are subject to a multitude of interpretations. Instead, St. Paul clearly taught St. Timothy that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). And that Church that Paul was referring to is the same Church that remains undefeated to this day under the oversight of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the rock upon whom our Lord built His Church. And most assuredly, the gates of hell have never prevailed against it.

From that point I started reading Catholic theology from a perspective of faith rather than criticism. All my doubts finally melted away...the Lord truly helped my unbelief. I started looking more deeply into the Church Fathers and started studying history from a Catholic perspective. WOW! I have never felt more blessed. I started praying the Rosary because I now saw it for what it really was....a prayerful walk with Mary, our Lord's closest disciple; a beautiful prayer for meditating deeply on the person and work of our Lord Jesus. 

God had led me to the treasury of truth openly displayed in the Catholic Church - the last place on earth I would ever have dreamed of finding it. The Catholic Church really is a family/household. We have God as our Father; Christ is our elder brother; Mary is our Mother; and all the saints are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Like the prodigal son, God has brought us home, and we cannot praise and thank Him enough for this great gift that He has given us. I only wish that I could describe in words the change that has happened in our lives because of this journey home. All I can say is that if you are on that path searching for the truth, then don’t stop looking until you find it. 

With my hand on my heart, I would encourage you to find out more about the Catholic faith, but find out from a faithful Catholic. Unfortunately, Protestants do not understand Catholicism. For example, most Protestants think that Catholics worship Mary and pray to her like they pray to God. This is not true. Catholics don't pray to Mary (at least not in the sense that Protestants think). We ask Mary, as our Mother (Jn 19:26) and the Mother of our Lord (Lk 1:43) to pray for us. Our prayers to God are on a completely different level (similar to how your discussions with friends are on a totally different level to your discussions with your spouse, which are again totally different to your discussions with God). The same is true of the saints. We ask Mary and the saints to assist us in our prayers because we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is One. If we can ask our brothers and sisters on earth to pray for us, surely we can also ask our brothers and sisters in heaven to pray for us, especially since their prayer in the glorified state is far more perfect than ours on earth can ever be.

Another misconception is that Catholics hate the Scriptures and the Catholic Church tries to hide them from the faithful. This couldn't be further from the truth. After all, if it weren't for the Catholic Church, Protestants would not have the Scriptures. The Catholic Church was God's agent, as the pillar and ground of truth, to firstly determine the New Testament Canon, and then to faithfully preserve the Scriptures throughout history. Catholics love the Scriptures far more than any Protestant could imagine. In a single Mass liturgy, there are more Scripture readings and allusions than a month of Sundays' services in most Protestant churches (apart from Anglican churches of course because Anglicans follow a liturgy very similar to the Catholics). Interestingly, the focus in most Protestant churches is the pulpit. This might give the impression that the Scriptures are central...but what it really tells is that the preacher is central along with his interpretation of the Scripture he is preaching on. [[[It's funny (not in the ha-ha kind of way) because it just goes to show that every Christian has his own pope - whether it is himself, or his pastor, or his favourite theologian]]]. There is far more preaching in Protestant churches than there is Scripture reading. However, in a Catholic Mass the first half of the service is dedicated to the Word; the second half to the Sacrament. The first half is dedicated to various Scripture readings: Old Testament and New. As a lover of the Bible, I was astounded when I first realised that the liturgy of the Word in a Catholic Mass is so Scripturally focused. But more than the Scriptures, or the sermon / homily, the supreme focus of the Mass is Jesus Christ Himself…present the in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. In the Catholic Church, it is not a pulpit that is central; it is the altar i.e. the place where the once-for-all Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ is made present for us today. And so, Jesus and His Communion of Himself completely with us is the whole focus of the Mass - not the priest; not the homily; not the beautiful decor - it is Christ that we all lift our eyes to behold when bread and wine are miraculously changed by God Himself into the life-giving Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ...for us.

The amazing thing for me is that I am still a babe; I have only understood and seen the tip of the iceberg (if indeed that much). If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see the depth and majesty of the treasures that God has in store. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehesible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!

I hope that I haven't been too long-winded...but I am glad that I have had the opportunity of sharing the most important points of our journey to the Catholic Church. 

Why is Water Added to Wine in the Holy Mass?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many people who witness the Holy Mass, but don’t fully understand it, will often come away thinking that it is a beautiful ritual – but nothing more than that. Then there are others who, in their misguided zeal, say that the Holy Mass is far from beautiful...in fact they claim that it is naught but an idolatrous religious affair filled with empty and pagan rituals. Fortunately, those who understand the depth of what is taking place in the Mass know better...

When we celebrate Mass, time and space are transcended, and we in fact enter into the Heavenly Jerusalem where we celebrate the Heavenly Liturgy with the Angels and Saints of all ages (see Heb 12:22). This is one reason for the responsorial at different points in the Mass:

“Lift up your hearts”......“We lift them up to the Lord”.

When we understand that time and space are transcended in the Holy Mass, we also starts to see how it is possible for the Sacrifice of the Mass to be none other than the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross at Calvary. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is not a re-sacrificing of Jesus Christ. Our Blessed Lord was sacrified once-for-all on Golgotha Hill 2,000 years ago. No! The Mass and Calvary are the selfsame sacrifice. In other words, what happened 2,000 years ago on Calvary is made present to us in every single Mass. [For example, see here, here, here, and here.]

To begin to understand the Mass, we first need to understand that it is not just some human ritual invented by the Apostles or Church Fathers. On the contrary, the Mass is the Divine Liturgy that has been instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ for His Holy Church; and all the rituals contained within the Mass have as their Author the Holy Spirit. As such, they can never be empty or idolatrous. In fact, to even say that the Mass is simply “beautiful” would be a gross understatement. The Mass is not simply beautiful – it is so much more than that....it is Divine!

To illustrate this, I’d like to take a look at just one very “small” ritual within the Mass – so small that it can easily go unnoticed...but if we miss it, we also miss something that has the deepest theological significance. I am speaking of the moment in the Mass when the priest adds the water to the wine before the Consecration.

To casual onlookers, this little act may seem a bit peculiar, and they may shrug it off without thinking much of it; but the truth is that this little act carries with it amazing relevance. For example, when the water is added to the wine, it is basically turned into wine – and this might remind us of the first sign performed by our Blessed Lord – when He miraculously turned the water into wine (see Jn 2:1-11). And if He can turn water into wine, then we have no reason to doubt that He can also turn the same wine into His Most Precious Blood.

But wait...there's more...

The Catechism of the Council of Trent reminds us that this practice of adding water to the wine for Consecration is actually derived from Apostolic tradition. And the Catechism goes on to provides us with three principal reasons for this practice:

Firstly, water must be added to the wine in imitation of Our Lord; who mingled water with wine at the Last Supper. This was attested to by St. Cyprian:

“[Solomon] declares the wine mingled [referring to Prov 9:1-2], that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s Passion which had been before predicted.” – Epistle 62, Chapter 5

Secondly, by adding the water to the wine, the faithful are reminded of the blood and water that issued from the side of Christ when He was pierced through with the lance (Jn 19:34).

Thirdly, water in Scripture often symbolises “the peoples, and multitudes, and nations” (e.g. Rev 17:15). It is the same “peoples, and multitudes, and nations” that Jesus Christ died for, and so the water mingled with wine signifies the union of the redeemed with Christ their head.

 

Without even going into any great detail in respect of the above points raised by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, one can begin to appreciate that there is a depth of Mystery in this simple little action in the Mass.

But wait...there's more...

The points raised by the Catechism are just a beginning. There is another point that I believe is worth adding, derived from the ritual itself.

When the priest (or deacon, if present) adds the water to the wine, he silently prays the following prayer:

“By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled Himself to share in our humanity.”

In reversal of the third point raised by the Catechism, in this prayer the people are symbolised by the wine in the chalice; and the divinity of Christ is symbolised by the pure water descending from above. Thus the mingling of water and wine serves to remind us of the Incarnation – the pure water descends from on high to be mingled with the wine, and this mingling is so complete that once they are mingled they cannot be separated. In the same way, God the Son descended from the Highest Heaven to make His tabernacle with men (Jn 1:14).

But wait...there’s more...

By this mingling of water and wine, we are not only being reminded of the Incarnation, but we are being reminded of the very reason for the Incarnation. But not only that...we are also being reminded of the very reason for the Mass!

St. Athanasius reminds us what the reason for the Incarnation was:

“God was made man, so that we might be made God” - On the Incarnation; Chapter 54:3

And as I have pointed out previously , this reality is brought about most especially in Most Blessed Sacrament when we receive the Lord Jesus in Holy Communion. We bring our gifts of bread and wine, as symbols of all that we are and have; then the Lord Jesus Christ turns these gifts into His Own Precious Body and Blood, which He in turn offers to us in Holy Communion...and in this Holy Communion we become united with Him so that we can be drawn more and more into His Divine Nature and be conformed to His image.

Isn’t that amazing? Who would’ve thought that all this could be represented by the simple act of adding a few drops of water to a chalice filled with wine? Often it’s the little things that teach us the greatest lessons...

Mary - the Ark of the Covenant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the earliest times, the Church has believed and taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the fulfilment of the Ark of the Covenant. For example:

“...the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the Ark overlaid with pure gold, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the Ark made manifest.” – St. Hippolytus (d. 236AD), Second Fragment on Daniel, Chapter 6

“Arise, O Lord, into Your rest; You, and the Ark of Your Sanctuary. For the Holy Virgin is in truth the Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the Sanctuary.” – St Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 275AD), Homily On the Annunciation

There are many more quotes available here, for any who are interested in digging deeper.

Well, as Catholics, it seems pretty obvious to us that Mary is the New Ark. The Ark was made of the purest gold – fulfilled in Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Mary bore within her womb the Lord Jesus Christ; and the Ark of the Covenant bore within it three things, which are fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ:

1)    The Rod of Aaron – Jesus the Eternal High Priest

2)    The Ten Commandments – Jesus the Great Prophet and Giver of the Law

3)    The Manna – Jesus the Bread of Life which comes from heaven

For Catholics, the idea that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant is simply a logical conclusion. But is there more to it? What about Sacred Scripture – does the Bible back up what we claim? After all, whilst we don’t hold to the notion of Sola Scriptura, we do believe that what the Holy Catholic Church teaches will never contradict Sacred Scripture.

So what does Scripture have to say on this subject then? We know that the New Testament clearly points to the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of many Old Testament types e.g. the New Adam (1 Cor 15:45), the Eternal High Priest (Heb 6:20), the New Temple (Jn 2:19-21), the New Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7), etc. But Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant? Did the Church Fathers simply dream this up? Where did they get such an idea? The New Testament never specifically says that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant…or does it?
 
In his Apocalypse, St. John tells us that he saw the Temple of God open up in heaven, and he beheld the Ark of the Covenant (Rev 11:19). Then he goes on to elaborate on what he saw…he saw a great sign in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head (Rev 12:1). Because of the chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bibles, we often miss the connection that St. John is making here. But, St. John didn’t write the Book of Revelation with chapter and verse divisions in mind. So, when he tells us about the Woman, he is developing what he saw in respect of the Ark of the Covenant.
 
So who is this Woman? Well, the Book of Revelation is a multi-layered prophecy with the images portrayed by St. John as being able to refer to various things all at the same time (e.g. the seven-headed dragon refers to seven mountains as well as seven kings, according to Rev 17:9). In a similar way, the image of the Woman is able to refer to multiple things (including Israel and the Church). But one thing that the image of the Woman undoubtedly refers to is the Blessed Virgin Mary. After all, if child referred to in Rev 12:4-5 is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that the Woman who gives birth to Him is none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, St. John was telling us that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

But that’s not the only reference we have. In St. Luke’s Gospel, when speaking about the visitation of the Blessed Virgin to St. Elisabeth (Lk 1:39-45), he subtly makes use an episode in Israel’s history for his backdrop. The parallel event that St. Luke draws upon is the relocating of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (see 2 Sam 6:1-16). There is so much overlap between these two passages that it is impossible to deny that St. Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wanted us to see Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. For example, here are just a few brief parallels to consider:

• Mary arose and went into the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39); David and his men go up into the same region (2 Sam 6:2)
• The baby leaped in Elisabeth’s womb (Lk 1:41); David leaped with dancing (2 Sam 6:16)
• Elisabeth’s exultation at Mary’s arrival (Lk 1:42); the people’s exultation at the Ark’s arrival (1 Chron 15:28)
• Elisabeth asks: “How could it be that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” (Lk 1:43); David asks: “How could the Ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
• Mary remains in the house of Elisabeth for three months (Lk 1:56); The Ark remained in the house of Obededom for three months (2 Sam 6:11)

[I should add that 1 Sam 6:6-8 mentions Uzzah putting forth his hand to touch the Ark, which was forbidden. In like manner, the Blessed Virgin was “untouched” by any man.]

These passages from St. John’s Apocalypse and St. Lukes Gospel show clearly that the early Church’s belief that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant has a solid Scriptural foundation; and these passages often form the basic Catholic apologetic to Protestants who think otherwise.

But earlier this week, as I started reading Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth - the Infancy Narratives”, I learned that there is even more in St. Luke’s account that points to Our Lady as the New Testament fulfilment of the Ark of the Covenant.  In fact, it is the first thing that St. Luke does to introduce us to the Blessed Virgin Mary – almost as if that was a fundamental point that he was trying to get across.

St. Luke introduces Mary to us in the words of Gabriel: “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee!” (Lk 1:28). These words are uttered by the Lord God, through the words of His messenger Gabriel, in fulfilment of the prophecy in Zeph 3:14-17:

Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion;
shout, O Israel!
Rejoice and exult with all your heart,
O daughter of Jerusalem!
The Lord has taken away the judgments against you,
he has cast out your enemies.
The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst;
you shall fear evil no more.
On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem:
“Do not fear, O Zion;
let not your hands grow weak.
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a warrior who gives victory;
he will rejoice over you with gladness,
he will renew you in his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.

The Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that St. Luke would have been familiar with) for “Sing aloud!” in Zeph 3:14 is the word “chairo!”. It means to “be full of cheer” or to “rejoice”. Why must the daughter of Zion rejoice? Zeph 3:17 tells us – because the Lord is in her midst. The Hebrew word for “in the midst of” is “qereb” and literally translated, it means “in the womb”. And it is the same word (“qereb”) that is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to describe how God dwells with His people in....(guess what???)...the Ark of the Covenant! So, Zephaniah prophesies for the daughter of Zion to rejoice because God will dwell within her womb.

Now, you’ll never guess what word St. Luke uses for Gabriel’s “Hail!” in his greeting of the Blessed Virgin? You got it! It is “chairo!”.  And why must Mary rejoice? Because she – the handmaid of the Lord – has God with her, in her midst, in her womb.

[Noting this, we also see that the Blessed Virgin becomes the fulfilment of the “daughter of Zion” – which has implications that point us back to the Woman in Rev 12:1.]

Note also that in Zeph 3:16, the prophet says to the people: “Fear not” (Zeph 3:16); and so too does Gabriel to Mary (Lk 1:30).

I just need to raise one more point needs to be made that would no doubt have been at the forefront of St. Luke’s mind as he was penning this narrative...

St. Luke knew that the Presence of God came to dwell in the midst (or in the womb) of His people by the cloud covering (or overshadowing) the Tabernacle / Temple (e.g. Ex 40:34; 2 Chron 5:13). And that is exactly how God came to dwell in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary i.e. by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35).

Now, this is all just merely scratching the surface regarding the Scriptural basis for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. At the very least what it shows is that the Church Fathers, in teaching that Mary was the Ark of God, were simply being faithful in preserving and developing true Apostolic doctrine, handed down through the teaching of the Church. And this same doctrine has also been preserved for us within Sacred Scripture – if only we are prepared to go looking...

As the Ark of the Covenant brought peace to God’s people because it was the sign that God was in their midst; so too may the presence of Our Lady in your life bring peace to your soul...because she is always with the Lord, who is the Great Prince of Peace!

 

The Nativity and the Baptism of the Lord

Following my most recent blog, I had another awe-inspiring thought...this time about the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and the way she has ordered the celebration of the Church’s Feasts...

Christmas Season officially begins with the Solemnity of the Nativity (that’s right folks, Christmas doesn’t begin until the celebration of Vigil of Christmas on 24 December). And it continues up until the Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord (which we have just celebrated this past Sunday). I didn’t realise it before, but these two “bookends” of the Christmas Season are actually deeply connected and ultimately speak to the same Mystery.

Allow me to elaborate...

The Solemnity of Christmas is ultimately about the celebration of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ through the Blessed Virgin. That much is obvious.

But what of the Solemnity of Our Lord’s Baptism? Well, to understand, we first need to ask why it was necessary that Our Lord be baptised. As I noted in another recent post, Baptism is our new birth into the family of God – our regeneration, or being born from above (see Jn 3:5). Furthermore, through Baptism, our sins are washed away (Acts 2:38; Tit 3:5). As noted previously, the Church Fathers taught that the baptismal waters were able to accomplish this awesome spiritual reality purely because the waters of Baptism were consecrated at the Baptism of Our Lord e.g.:

“From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, from that moment water washes away all sins." - St. Augustine

“The Lord is baptised, not having occasion to be cleansed, but that, purifying the waters by the contact of His pure flesh, they may have the power of cleansing.” – St. Augustine

“The water of baptism, had it not been sanctified by contact with the body of our Lord, could not purge the sins of believers.” – St. John Chrysostom

 

So, the Solemnity of the Nativity celebrates the birth of Our Lord into this world; and the Solemnity of the Lord’s Baptism celebrates the consecration of the water by which we are born into the Kingdom of God.

But wait...there’s more...in fact there’s a lot more. But, I want to share just a couple more brief points with the hope that they will inspire within us a desire to meditate more deeply, so that we can offer even more praise to God for His Infinite Goodness!!!

Why was Jesus born? The answer is to die...As the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen often said “Most men are born to live; but the Lord Jesus was born to die”. So the Solemnity of the Nativity also speaks to us of Calvary. And the Solemnity of the Baptism of Our Lord does the same thing. St. Paul reminds us that it is through baptism that we are crucified with the Lord Jesus Christ and raised again to new life in Him (Rom 6:3-4).

And finally...

At His birth, the Mother of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, would no doubt have exclaimed “This is my beloved Son!” What did the Father of Our Lord proclaim at His Baptism? “This is my beloved Son”!

Oh the depths of the riches of wisdom with which the Lord has blessed His Holy and Glorious Bride!

Does Baptism Save Us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a blog I posted a while back on Circumcision and Baptismal Regeneration, an interesting discussion ensued with an “Anonymous” Protestant. He tried to argue that the Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration was damnable heresy. He tried to use 1 Pet 3:21 in an attempt to argue that it is not baptism which saves...but “spiritual baptism”:

“And baptism, which this prefigured [i.e. the Great Flood and Noah’s ark], now saves you – not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” – 1 Pet 3:21

His argument was basically that St. Peter’s reference to baptism saving us – but not as a removal of dirt from the body – was a reference to spiritual baptism, not physical baptism i.e. the body is physical; conscience is spiritual; therefore, St. Peter was talking about spiritual baptism.

I dealt with the Anonymous comments at the time, but recently as I was reading the book of Hebrews, I was reminded of the discussion as I read a passage which sheds some light on 1 Pet 3:21. 

Before I explain further, I need to digress slightly...

Protestants who hold to the tradition of Sola Scriptura hold as a fundamental principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. This is good insofar as it goes, but it fails to see an underlying circular argument which always comes back to private interpretation. In other words, Sola Scriptura is REALLY Sola Mea i.e. it’s not so much about Scripture interpreting Scripture, but more about how “I interpret Scripture interpreting Scripture”. The logical conclusion of “Sola Scriptura” is that Scripture is ultimately interpreted according to the individual interpreter’s own preconceived theology. For example, a Baptist using the principle of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” will formulate a very different “Biblical” framework for baptism than a Presbyterian using the exact same principle. Both appeal to Sola Scriptura...and Scripture interpreting Scripture...yet they come to completely opposing views.

The Catholic position embraces the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, but also goes further. The Catholic Church teaches that “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written” (CCC # 111). The Spirit was given by Christ to His Church for the purpose that He would always lead the Church in all truth (Jn 16:13); ensuring that throughout all ages, the Church would ALWAYS remain the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

So, for the Catholic, Scripture certainly does interpret Scripture, but always within the guidance of Apostolic Tradition and the interpretive authority of the Holy Catholic Church.

OK...back to the topic at hand...

The passage in Hebrews which sheds light on 1 Pet 3:21 is Heb 9:13-14. For ease of reference and comparison, here are the two passages:

“And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you – not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” – 1 Pet 3:21

“For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!” – Heb 9:13-14

To put Heb 9:13-14 in context, the author has been dealing with the various Old Testament ceremonies which were unable to perfect the consciences of the Old Testament worshipper (v9). This included the various baptisms in the Old Testament (v10). [Which, by the way, is an interesting point for Baptists to consider – given that they mistakenly hold that baptism always means immersion; whereas these Old Testament baptisms were carried out by sprinkling.]

The reason the Old Testament ceremonies could not perfect the conscience was because they were symbols that pointed forward to fulfilment in the Passion of Christ. As symbols of the reality to come, they were incomplete. But now Christ has come; He has died on the Cross for the sins of the world, and He has risen again for our justification. And so the Old Testament symbols now give way to the New Testament realities (vv11-12).

Now this doesn’t mean that the Old Testament symbols were completely empty. No – the author of Hebrews tells us that although they were not able to perfect the conscience (v9), they were able to purify the flesh (v13). But now in the New Covenant, the Blood of Christ has been shed and so the conscience of the worshipper is able to be purified. And this is the same point that St. Peter was making in 1 Pet 3:21 – that baptism in Christ is not like the Old Testament symbols which only purified the body – NO! Baptism in the New Covenant purifies our very conscience – not by virtue of the water, but by virtue of the Blood of Christ shed for the one being baptised.

To confirm that this has always been the understanding of the Church, handed down from the Apostles, consider the following sample of quotes from the Church Fathers which show that they unanimously agreed that baptism regenerates us and washes away our sins:

St. Justin Martyr (AD 155)

In speaking of converts to Christianity, St. Justin states that after a time of fasting and remission of former sins:

“they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles.” – First Apology; Chapter 61

St. Theophilus of Antioch (AD 181)

“Those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God [referring to Creation], so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration” – To Autolycus; Book 2, Chapter 16

St. Clement of Alexandria (AD 202)

“When we are baptised, we are enlightened...It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins; a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted...” – The Instructor; Book 1, Chapter 6

Tertullian (AD 206)

“...Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.” – On Baptism; Chapter 7

St. Jerome (AD 397)

“All sins are forgiven in baptism” – Epistle 69, To Oceanus; Chapter 4


How is it possible that water is able to wash away sins? St. Augustine explains:

“From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, from that moment water washes away all sins.”

“The Lord is baptised, not having occasion to be cleansed, but that, purifying the waters by the contact of His pure flesh, they may have the power of cleansing.” – Sermon de Tempore; 29, 36, 37

And St. John Chrysostom concurs:

“The water of baptism, had it not been sanctified by contact with the body of our Lord, could not purge the sins of believers.”

What is the point of all this? The point is to remind us that our baptism is not just an empty symbol. It is something far greater than that. By our baptism, we are crucified and risen with the Lord Jesus Christ; we are born again; and as the author of Hebrews reminds us – through our baptism we are purified from dead works to worship the living God (Heb 9:14). Through baptism we have been made alive (regenerated) by a sharing in the Life of the Living God – and our only reasonable response should be to worship and adore God forever for giving us such an amazing and unmerited gift. In the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“...it is especially required of every Christian man to strive to spend each day of his life as holily and religiously as if it were that very day on which he had received the sacrament and grace of baptism.” – Question XL