By Selwyn Duke
Except for those still caught in the web of the media matrix, it’s no secret that the Fossil Press seeks to destroy conservatism, tradition and Christianity. It’s also plain that central to this are unrelenting attacks on the Catholic Church. But a February 5 piece in The Independent written by one Michael Day reaches a low worthy of Cold War commissars.
The article concerns the fact that Pope Benedict XVI’s status as an organ donor ended when he ascended to the papacy and is titled, “Pope's organs are too holy to donate to mortals, says Church.” Wow, that sounds really bad. It must be an example of the Church hierarchy superciliously placing itself above the hoi polloi. Except that a discerning person may smell a rat; in this case, a journalism-school rat who would never let the Truth get in the way of a cherished agenda. And, sure enough, while Day repeats the supposed Vatican sentiment in his first paragraph, a little ways further down is the real explanation for the Church’s policy:
Archbishop Zymunt Zimowski, a member of the Vatican health council, said it was because the body of the Pope effectively belonged to the entire Catholic Church. "It's understandable that the body of the Pontiff should rest intact because, in his role as successor to Saint Paul and universal pastor of the Catholic Church, he belongs entirely to the Church in spirit and body," he told La Repubblica.
Obviously, the Church never stated what Day attributed to her. And while the writer goes on to claim that the Vatican hasn’t always adhered to this policy and thus lacks credibility, the real issue is his lack of journalistic credibility. If his piece were an op-ed, such a presentation would be bad enough. But note that it is supposed to be hard news. It’s more like hard propaganda.
Day might try to lawyer the matter and point out that he didn’t include quotation marks around the “Church” statement, but he knew exactly what he was doing. A reader not very careful or inclined toward anti-Christian bigotry would likely be left with the impression that the statement is the Church’s. So I guess we know what The Independent is independent of: integrity.
As for religious teaching, lots of faiths have doctrines that raise secular eyebrows – but not all faiths get Day’s treatment. As to this, I wonder when he’ll pen a story about how Muslims often consider infidels unclean and don’t even want to touch a Koran that has been defiled by kafir hands. Something tells me we may have to wait for that one, as Day and his militant secular ilk haven’t finished destroying Western civilization yet.
These dummies just can’t wait to be dhimmis, can they?
This article was first published at American Thinker
© 2011 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved
Good one Mr. Duke, this is one of the main reasons why I don't trust printed or televised media in the first place. The job of journalists is to gather information about a particular topic and present it so the general population can access it. It is NOT their job to give their opinion of the material because that taints the information in many ways. What happens here is that many journalists narrow the amount of information gathered, they leave bits and pieces out to support their position. It seems now that many journalists now aren't being subtle anymore,"Pope's organs are too holy to donate to mortals, says Church". I mean come on that is not even trying. I know that Mr.Duke already said this so I will shut up and let more helpful comments be posted, but I just couldn't help myself. I want facts, just facts. I don't want statistics, or opinions, it is not really hard. I am just tired of all the propagated and secularized media.
Posted by: A high school student | February 09, 2011 at 08:31 PM
The holy Roman Catholic Church is a major target of the radical left due to their outspoken stance against homosexuality and abortion. Period.
I am a Catholic apostate. I was raised as a Roman Catholic but I have found more spiritual awareness and understanding as a Protestant. That said, I have the deepest admiration for the Roman Catholic Church for the manifold ways in which their faithful serve to mitigate human suffering throughout the world and to preach the Gospel of Christ to so many that might not otherwise have the opportunity. I also believe whole-heartedly that Pope John Paul, II was an is the greatest spiritual leader of my lifetime: a truly beautiful and saintly man.
The attack on the holy Roman Catholic Church was focused primarily on sexual and child-abuse scandals leveled against the Catholic priesthood. What the Leftists "journalists" (they are more accurately described as "Activists") have left out of their articles and editorials are the following:
1. Incidents of reported abuses by Catholic clergy are far less than society at-large.
2. Homosexual and pederast "plants" faked their way into the clergy knowing full-well of the easy access to and nearly-automatic trust that they would have with potential victims.
3. Many reports of such abuse were reported some 20-30 years AFTER the fact and in most cases, the alleged clerical "abuser" was long-dead and could not provide cross-testimony, examination or interrogation.
Sexual abuse of any kind, especially toward a child, is reprehensible and deplorable and I am not seeking to mitigate such abject horror, nor am I condoning the actions of those that were truly guilty of such a heinous act. I am merely admonishing my fellow-readers that the Left and the homosexual agenda attacks without regard to the Truth.
When will America grow tired of being lied to? When will the Left discover that so many of us are on to their lies?
Posted by: Philip France | February 10, 2011 at 10:28 PM
America will never grow tired of being lied to if they keep themselves dependent of the government. It is easier for the government to become to take care of them, and the people that choose to live under this policy will either turn a blind eye or be ( either intentionally or not ) ignorant to the misinformation that is being spoon fed for them. The media has destroyed the need for some to have independent thought. Rather than to be have a certain aspect of skepticism, they take all of the presented information as fact. In order for America to stop listening to these lies, they need to either have a revolution or simply see the effects of their ignorance. An example for the latter, if the proposed Health Care Reform is legislated, then people will see what is happening at a moment too late. It is harder to resist and to rid of a system that is in place and is enforced, rather than to have rallied and fought to prevent an oppressing system in the first place. I see very grim times ahead if we indeed keep believing these lies. By the way, I am a Catholic and I appreciate your post. I am attacked almost daily of my faith. I am thinking heavily on taking a vocation and becoming a priest am I hope to fight the leftist attack on the Catholic faith. I am happy at least to see that a fellow man that supports my faith. And with that I say thank you and I do appreciate your posts. You have a good head on your shoulders, don't let the grim times ahead leave you in despair. It is always darkest before the dawn.
Posted by: A high school student | February 13, 2011 at 09:53 PM
My Dear Young Friend,
While I repeat my respect for holy Roman Catholic Church and I encourage your future ambitions so long as they are fully informed, I feel obligated by your compliments toward me that you consider the reasons for my Roman Catholic apostasy.
Of the three major Western religious categories (Judaism, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism - all of whom I have the utmost respect for) I have chosen Protestantism for one simple reason: "Solé Scriptura". This means "only Scripture. This is the Protestant doctrine that I esteem above the other two Western religious philosophies.
You see, in Judaism, there is not only The Torah - The Word of God, but also Rabbinical doctrine known as The Talmud. In Roman Catholicism there is also the word of God, but also church dogma and the declarations by The Pope that are considered "ex cathedra" - literally, "from the throne" and these proclamations are esteemed by Roman Catholics to transcend Holy Writ. I have a serious ideological disconnect with such an understanding.
In planning your future ambitions, I urge you to consider the works of author/columnist/radio host Dennis Prager - a learned Jew who speaks and writes with utmost confidence and clarity as well as Evangelical and Protestant Pastor John Heggey (both of whom, I understand, have a deep and abiding respect for one another).
Lastly, there is also me. I extend my hand of friendship and fellowship to you to afford you the results of my many years of intense Biblical research study.
Regardless of your future choices, you have my utmost respect and admiration for being a critically thinking, clear-headed and articulate young individual.
May our Almighty God, Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that in them is, bless you abundantly in the knowledge and in the name of our risen and victorious Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus.
Posted by: Philip France | February 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but I did see a few things posted in the comments that need correcting:
Sola scriptura is a false dogma as it cannot be supported by scripture (The Bereans are often mistakenly used as a reference). Irony! Scripture tells us of many ways 'to be saved' but I don't recall any scripture that says one needs to read a book. When I hear proclamations like this, a question always comes to mind, "Would your faith die if you didn't have a Bible?" I also find it sad when I hear these things as this dogma raises the created above the Creator. Please, don't ever choose the Bible over Jesus! God tells us, in the NT, that there never would be enough books to contain all that He is. He says to listen to his Son. A wise man would stop trying to correct God.
The Church embraces all Jesus said & there is nothing contradictory in her teachings. God gave the Catholic Church a huge responsibility with the writings, collections, safe-guarding, & selection of the canon of books of the Bible. Common sense would tell someone that no church is going to publish a book of faith that they do not adhere to themselves! Talk about the epitome of negative publicity!
It is the Catholic Church, of which the Roman Catholic Church is one Rite; much like the Melekite Catholic Church is another Rite of the one holy catholic & apostolic Church. It's in the Creeds.
As for the Pope speaking [formal] ex cathedra; I know how many times that has been put into practice, & why. Before you speak on this topic again, I suggest you do more research.
Accept our protesting brethren but, while doing so, remember the words of our Lord when he sent the disciples out into the world & show loving-kindness, but be smart about it! :-)
There is none better to learn of our Lord and our faith than Fr. Corapi on EWTN. He's also on YouTube.
God bless & Peace of Christ be with you all.
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 14, 2011 at 12:51 AM
Dear Sticks n stones,
“Sola scriptura is a false dogma”. You did not explain this contention to any satisfaction. To believe that one’s understanding of “pneumatikos” (things of the Spirit) as being “sole scriptura” is the most sound and satisfying position that I have personally experienced. For background, I was raised as a Roman Catholic. I went to a Catholic high school where I received a superior education than that of my public school friends; however, I also experienced and observed bigotry among my fellow-students against myself (because my family had barely the economic means to send me there) and against racial minorities.
I lived across the street from a Baptist church and I participated in their youth group by playing basketball. Once they realized that I would always leave before they commenced their prayer service, they cornered me and insisted, “I must be saved”. Quoting from Scripture, they insisted that I confess the Lord Jesus, publicly and out loud. I did, but after protesting that I had already done so, silently and solemnly. This turned me off.
In my late adolescence and early adulthood I dated a Buddhist. She was a gorgeous young woman and I read the Buddhist tractates. I found them beautiful and somewhat inspiring but they also seemed spiritually empty.
I befriended a young man who was a devout Jehovah’s Witness and he taught me a great many things that I still know as Truth. We studied together and I determined that he and his colleagues took so many Biblical precepts far too literally (for instance, there is an Old Testament verse that warns against the “taking of gifts”. This verse is the one that JW’s hold forth as to why they do not celebrate Christmas or birthdays. In context, it is abundantly clear to me that the “gifts” that are referred to are “bribes”.
My dear brother led me to a now-defunct ministry that taught that “the word of God is the will of God” and that God’s word could be understood by a common man, such as myself. I attended a class that provided to me keys and instruction as to how the word of God (and, it follows, the will of God) interprets itself. This was liberation for me – a satisfaction of my spiritual hunger, of which, I believe we all experience.
I also take exception to your following statement: “I also find it sad when I hear these things as this dogma raises the created above the Creator.”. Where have I ever done so? I do not believe this in the slightest and I can expound on Romans, chapter One to the point that I would drive you to tears (of joy, of course).
You say: “A wise man would stop trying to correct God.”. You are correct. But an even wiser man would endeavor to understand God by not simply relying on English translations and subsequent versions. A wiser man might seek out His face by endeavoring to understand the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew words from which the English Bibles have been translated. Additionally, there are Orientalisms and Eastern manners and customs that, unless one has become familiar with them, many passages of The Bible cannot be fully and properly understood. I do not know of all of them, but I have studied many of them. Have you? This is not to mention Figures of Speech used in The Bible. In discussion with many of my most learned friends, they can name about five Figures of Speech (usually Metaphor, Simile, Idiom, Hyperbole and Parentheses). I will have you to know that approximately 272 Figures of Speech are utilized in the Bible and up to 70 varieties under a single Figure!
You also say this: “The Church embraces all Jesus said & there is nothing contradictory in her teachings.”. The word “church” in the New Testament of The Bible is translated from the Greek word “eklesia”. This word means simply, “to be called out for a united purpose”. It does not refer to any denomination, nor does it refer to a building with a steeple on top. In fact, in Acts chapter 19, verse 32, the word “eklesia” is used in reference to an angry mob (translated in this case as “assembly”). You and I are of the same ‘eklesia’ in that we both have been “called out” by God to a united purpose, that is: the glorification of the Most High God through the knowledge of his son, Christ Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less.
Begging your pardon but this statement: “Common sense would tell someone that no church is going to publish a book of faith that they do not adhere to themselves!” defies common sense. Are you not aware of the Frankfurt School and their determination and success in infiltrating our churches? Are you not aware of ministries in which they teach that Jesus was gay?
You also wrote this: “It is the Catholic Church, of which the Roman Catholic Church is one Rite; much like the Melekite Catholic Church is another Rite of the one holy catholic & apostolic Church. It's in the Creeds.” You are correct according to Roman Catholic dogma, but nothing else. The Roman Catholic Church essentially began in the 4th Century when Emperor Constantine scored a great victory at the Mylvan Bridge and converted to Christianity shortly thereafter. The Emporer was so elated that he offered criminal and political pardon to anyone else who would accept this new doctrine. A noble effort indeed, but the consequence was that so many new converts accepted this “gospel” that the church leadership could not manage it. This resulted in a radical compromise of Biblical doctrine to many doctrines observed by Pagans (for example – the R.C, position on “sainthood” to unique men and women; this replaced the multiple “gods” of pagan culture and was a compromise. EVERY person who believes on our Lord Jesus Christ is a saint (Romans 10:9.10). You, sir and me included.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that St. Peter was its first Pope. This is historically preposterous. First of all, Peter was married. Secondly, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Peter was ever in Rome. Not in the scriptures, not in the early commentaries (such as Josephus) and not anywhere else. It would be far more believable that St. Paul was the first Pope as there is abundant evidence that he spent his final years in Rome.
“As for the Pope speaking [formal] ex cathedra; I know how many times that has been put into practice, & why. Before you speak on this topic again, I suggest you do more research.” I am quite interested. Please tell me more.
You close with this blessing: “God bless & Peace of Christ be with you all.”. I agree and I wish the very same for you.
I wish to admonish you and remind you that I have a deep respect for the Roman Catholic faith and tradition. I disagree with some of it. I have read the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and those of the great Sir Thomas More. I have already stated, more than once, that Pope John Paul II was and is the greatest spiritual leader of my lifetime. The woman that I love is a devout Roman Catholic who sings in her church choir. My beloved sister is a Deacon in her parish.
In my own experience, I have found the most spiritual satisfaction, Biblical knowledge and understanding and peace of mind and heart pursuing “sole scriptura”. I have a confident and profound understanding of why we are here, what is to come and to how this all ends and I am at peace with the manifold and profound questions that plague most humans. May you be so at peace.
God bless you.
Posted by: Philip France | February 14, 2011 at 11:44 PM
I would not bother to respond to P.France were it not for the student who is considering the priesthood. He will need to know how to defend Jesus and his Church against falsehoods. I will address each topic in the order it has been presented.
References for all replies are taken from one of the following: Bible,New Advent, Catholic Online, The Holy See online, EWTN, Early Christian Writings, Fordham University, CCC, and more I've forgotten.
Bible-only aka Sola Scriptura:
"Sola scriptura is a false dogma as it cannot be supported by scripture." --Did you find proof of Bible-only in the Bible? If the Bible is the sole source of knowledge a Christian is to use, why can we not find one passage that states as such? We do find many stating it is Tradition and Scripture.
Sola Scriptura means Bible-only. If this were true, then the Bible would tell us this.
"Pneumatikos" - "things of the Spirit," and, as used in 1Corinthians, "Spiritual gifts". If one's goal is simply to understand the Spiritual gifts, then I agree; just read about them. I'm curious as to what attempt you will endeaver to persuade me that an intangible being can be confined to the pages of an inanimate object and can only be found in said inanimate object?
I know if one desires to receive the greater portion of a Spiritual gift; to come closer to Jesus and become an instrument for God's will, they communicate this to God through the different means he established: prayer, meditation and/or fasting. This is what Jesus did, and taught; this is what the Apostles taught; it is written in the Bible. Anything that would eliminate the practice of these gifts from God cannot be of God.
Sola scriptura does just that: it says everything one needs to know about God and Jesus is written on those pages and anything that isn't written on those pages, is not true. Sola scriptura is a stumbling-block for those wishing to achieve the fullness of our rich faith--to worship Him in spirit and in truth.
I'll say it one last time and challenge you to find scripture to prove me wrong: Bible-only is a manmade dogma that is not supported by anything God has said or anything written in the Bible nor any Church document or tradition. It's simply false.
I have numerous quotations from our early church fathers on the value of Tradition and Scripture--too many to post more than one or two.
Epiphanius-"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in tradition." (Panacea Against All Heresies, 61, 6 [A.D. 374]).
John Chrysostom-"'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.' From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians [A.D. 398-404]).
I hope this clarifies things for you.
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:15 PM
Scripture interprets scripture?
Bible study is bible study and worship is worship.
Ironic how so many differing versions of Christianity, all claiming to have been given the Truth from the Holy Spirit in interpreting Sacred Scripture, can give so many contending beliefs. But they all claim Sola Scriptura!
I would be interested in challenging such a claim as "the word of God..interprets itself." Can you find the scripture that interprets Jude 9? I'd like to read other scripture that would explain to me what that was all about.
Or John 13:23, when we read of an apostle that Jesus loved? Who was that? Why is someone described as such? Doesn't Jesus love everyone? I remember the little jingle taught in Sunday School: "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so.." What's that all about?
Where are the answers in Scripture?
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:19 PM
Worshipping the created over the Creator: Bible-only
Reading the bible is no guarantee one will be saved.
Coming to God in prayer, with a humble and contrite heart, is the surest first step towards salvation. Ask, seek, knock--no reading required! Be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable to our Lord, prepared unto every good work. Stop pushing a book and start pushing Jesus.
I like reading of St. Paul and the Romans but prefer the teachings of our Lord in the Gospels. You say you can expound me to tears over Romans? (that proclamation alone proves my point) - Can you expound as much, and hopefully more, on our Lord?
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:23 PM
The wiser man reads Aramaic and Hebrew?
"If one has ALL knowledge, but has not love..."
The wisest of men has holes in the knees of his pants; he also doesn't make assumptions.
He whose ear listens to the life-giving reproof Will dwell among the wise.
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:25 PM
Church? What and who is it? CCC #830+
Am I to assume, since you insist on this definition, that you agree with all the Catholic Church teaches, too? Agree, but refuse to follow, that is; laying claim to certain gray areas? By the way, I go to church to worship with other believers--I'm not sure where you worship but I bet it's indoors.
Not that you'll understand this next statement any more than you do with the CC/RCC difference, or that church also refers to a building, or sainthood (and the communion of saints), etc., but the Catholic Church is not a denomination.
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:31 PM
Common sense? or lack thereof?
I don't consider anyone that believes Jesus was gay as having common sense. No more common sense than anyone who believes Arthur Murray when he claims Eve had sex with the serpent.
But, common sense would tell someone that these ministries preach, teach and publish books adhering to their twisted beliefs.
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:39 PM
It's the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
To name only a few, there are Melekite, Chaldean, Byzantine, Slovak, etc., Catholic Churches. Accept the truths that you cannot change. It was, is and always will be, the Catholic Church.
I wonder; would you walk into Walmart and insist they call themselves, McDonalds?
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:43 PM
Pope Peter and was he ever in Rome?
There is more evidence than I will post on this blog that Peter was indeed in Rome, preaching the Gospel of Christ.
As for St. Peter being married, this does not negate that he could be pope. That's a fool's argument. Years before St. Paul's conversion, St. Peter was appointed, by God, to spread the Good News to the gentiles:
Acts 15: 7 "After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe."
Simply because Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter's journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written.
Peter concludes his first epistle with a cryptic greeting from "Babylon." This was the early Church's code word for Rome. The term didn't mean the city of Babylon which figures so greatly in the Old Testament, though the code word was chosen precisely because of what ancient Babylon had done to the Jews--the Romans were doing likewise to Christians. If you didn't want to advertise your whereabouts to the disloyal opposition, you used code words.
The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in Rome. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders.
One honest Protestant historian and theologian, Adolph Harnack, wrote that "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind."
In Eusebius' (Ecclesiastical History) we read: "Under the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.) by the benign and gracious providence of God, Peter that great and powerful apostle, who by his courage took the lead of the rest, was conducted to Rome." Both the Latin (Hieronymian) and Syriac translations of Eusebius' Chronicle make Peter to have gone to Rome in the second year of Claudius and to Antioch two years later.
Here we have proof positive that Peter indeed visited Rome on more than one occasion.
The Acts tells us that in 43, after the death of James, Peter left Jerusalem "for another place". He is lost from sight until 49, when we find him at the council of Jerusalem.
The immediate events after Peter's departure from Jerusalem are revealed in an ancient Ethiopic text called (The Contendings of the Apostles) which states:
"my master Peter embraced the brethren who were living in the city of Jerusalem...then we departed to the border of the city of Joppa, and we embarked on a ship and sailed over the sea until [we arrived] at the island of Cyprus, where we dwelt for 3 and 20 days, for thus had the Lord told me (Peter) to do....Whilst I was still in the island of Cyprus, the angel of God appeared unto me, and said..."Rise up, and go to the city of Rome"; so I departed thereunto...I arrived at the city of Rome and entered therein.
Early writers such as Clement, Eusebius and Jerome affirm that Mark's gospel was first made public in Rome at an early date!
In Eusebius' second book of church history we are informed as to how Peter was found "carrying with him the proclamation of the glorious gospel.
Being at Rome, Peter approved the work of Mark's Gospel." Clement of Alexandria asserts that Peter preached at Rome, and that Mark wrote his gospel at the request of Peter's hearers. (Hipol. Lib. VI. Apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 14).
During 1947, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were being recovered from the hillside caves adjacent to the community of Quram, 19 tiny scraps of papyrus (identified as fragments of Mark's gospel) were found.
Subsequent dating by Professor Jose O'Callaghan at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, showed these fragments to be part of a scroll kept at a Palestinian library IN 50 A.D.
This indicates that Mark's gospel may have been in circulation within about a dozen years of Christ's death in 30 A.D. This fits perfectly with the time-frame of an early visit to Rome by Peter and Mark.
Protestant historian Harnack agrees, saying: "There can be no objection to accepting the voice of Tradition which makes the gospel of Mark to have been written for the use of St. Peter's Roman converts about the year 45 A.D."
The only logical conclusion we can come to is that Peter not only came to Rome just before his death there in 68 A.D., but also immediately after his release from prison under Herod in 43 A.D. He founded the Church of God in the Imperial City and, for almost 25 years preached the gospel of Christ throughout Rome.
Papias (70-155 A.D.), as recorded by Eusebius, tells us that “Mark wrote his gospel (based on Peter's sermons) in the City of Rome. Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, embodying what he had heard Peter tell." “When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority, as Clemens, in the 6th book of his "Hypotyposes" and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record.”
Dionysius Bishop of Corinth "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8). Aka (Letter to Pope Soter [AD 170] quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8)
Clement of Alexandria "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190-200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Tertullian "This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter." (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 and 32:2 [AD 200])
Clement "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Lactantius noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked. He converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.” (a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors 2:5, written around AD 318)
When this fact was reported to Nero, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew."
Bishop Peter of Alexandria- "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome." (Penance, Canon 9, AD 306)
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea- "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years." (The Chronicle, AD 303)
He reminded the apostles of Peter’s primacy. While Jesus assuaged the jealousies that gave rise to the dispute by assuring the apostles that each would have authority within his kingdom (cf. Luke 22:28–30), he proceeded to single out Peter from the other apostles:
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [the Greek here is plural, referring to all the apostles), that he might sift you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [the Greek here is singular, referring to Peter specifically] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31–32).
The Lord—in plain view of the other apostles—treats Peter differently. Satan demanded to have all the apostles, but Jesus prayed for Peter specifically, that his faith not fail—conferring upon him alone the role of strengthening the brethren, including the other apostles. "Strengthen[ing] the brethren" is the essence of the type of primacy outlined by Christ in the preceding verses where he said, "Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves." Peter, made strengthener of all—servant of all—by God himself, is to be the "leader"—the "greatest"—among the apostles.
The same Simon whose faith won him the name "rock" (Matthew 16:18)—and upon whom the Lord promised to build his Church, against which hell will not prevail—received divine protection of his faith for the purpose of strengthening the brethren.
Pope Gregory the Great- (A.D. 590–604) sees in Luke 22:31–32, as well as in other Petrine passages, that it is "apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed" to Peter (Register of the Epistles 5:20).
It is, after all, through Peter that the Church’s faith is strengthened as outlined by Pope Leo the Great (440–461): "All [the apostles] equally needed the help of divine protection, since the devil wanted to harass them all and to crush them all. Still, the Lord took special care of Peter and prayed especially for Peter. It was as if the condition of the others would be more secure if the mind of their leader were not overcome. In Peter, therefore, the fortitude of all is reinforced, for the aid of divine grace is ordered in such a way that the firmness given to Peter through Christ is conferred upon the apostles through Peter" (Sermon 4, 3).
Way to go, Pope Peter!
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:51 PM
I will write Constantine soon, as a friend of mine has a vibrant story to tell that was taught in Parochial school, by nuns. It's much better reading than all my research.
As for ex cathedra, there is too much online for me to take the time to explain. IF you are truly seeking the Truth, I will tell you what I tell my students--do your own seeking, and don't disappoint me.
Thank-you for the opportunity to share these Truths.
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 17, 2011 at 07:55 PM
Dear Sticks n stones,
You have my admiration for the thoroughness of your reply. Please accept that we are not adversaries but contend certain aspects of highly critical importance and minute detail. You are my Christian brother or sister with whom I gladly join hands and arms with in our struggle against evil. Here is my reply:
Matthew 4:4
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not ive by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."
Is this not "solé scriptura"? This is spoken by Jesus himself, quoting Deuteronmy 8:3.
"I'm curious as to what attempt you will endeaver to persuade me that an intangible being can be confined to the pages of an inanimate object and can only be found in said inanimate object?"
Romans 10:17
"So then faith (the belief that an intangible being can be confined to the pages of an inanimate object) cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".
"I know if one desires to receive the greater portion of a Spiritual gift; to come closer to Jesus and become an instrument for God's will, they communicate this to God through the different means he established: prayer, meditation and/or fasting. This is what Jesus did, and taught; this is what the Apostles taught; it is written in the Bible. Anything that would eliminate the practice of these gifts from God cannot be of God."
Romans 3:22
“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: “
The point here is that God does not dole out “special favors” or “special gifts”. You may find an exception with regard to the gift ministries (i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers as referred to in the Book of Ephesians – Chapter 4, vs. 11) but these gift ministries are the result of the ambition of the individual believer, not with regard to respect of persons by God.
“Sola scriptura does just that: it says everything one needs to know about God and Jesus is written on those pages and anything that isn't written on those pages, is not true.”
Please refer back to the original verse that I quoted (Matthew 4:4). Please also note the following:
II Timothy 3:16
All (take special note of that word) scripture is inspiration of God (from the Greek “Theopnuestos – God-breathed) and is profitable for doctrine,, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness>
II Peter 1:20-21
“Knowing this first (take special heed of that last word), the NO (my emphasis) prophecy of the scripture is of any private (private = the Greek “idios”, or one’s own) interpretation.
For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
“Solé scriptura” indeed has overwhelming Biblical support and evidence.
Lastly, I am impressed by your understanding of the early church fathers and much can be learned from them. Where I disagree is that their writings are opinion, subject to fallibility. Scripture is the Word of the Almighty God. It is infallible and authoritative.
God bless,
PMF
PS I have not yet read your other postings. I have had a long day and I am going to sign off immediately after posting this reply. I am interested in your thoughts and I intend no slight toward you, whatsoever.
Posted by: Philip France | February 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM
Dear Sticks n stones,
Well, it is settled. Take it from the man or woman who knows everything.
I truly look foward to comparing the results of our studies in eternity. It will be fun to compare notes when we "know as also we are known" - I am certain that we will both be surprised.
I commend you for your thoroughness, but I am not moved.
God bless you,
PMF
PMF
Posted by: Philip France | February 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM
When persons resort to treating others in an uncharitable manner, they betray the Lord Jesus Christ and cease being an authentic witnesses to him whom they claim to serve. I did not anticipate the downward slide into hyperbole so I must not know everything. It is not the charity one expects from someone who described themselves as my Christian brother.
I believe the Bible to be the written Word of God. I believe Jesus is the Living Word of God. I believe God works through anybody and anything he wants. I just don't believe God limits his spiritual blessings only to those who can read the Bible. How cruel would that be to someone that is blind? Our Father is full of lovingkindness, slow to anger and he desires to lose none to the devil. Therefore, I believe He appeals to all our senses, if we let Him. The Sacraments are great for that.
I could not wait until eternity to finish dispelling the manmade tradition of Sola Scriptura, as I know were I to remain silent I would be held accountable for failing to do what is right.
Matt. 4:4 "Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." --When Jesus spoke these words, I doubt he was giving the devil a lesson on Bible-only. He quotes from Deuteronomy of the perishable food--the manna from Heaven the Jews ate for forty years; knowing all along that He is the living, imperishable food and drink as he says in these Bible quotes taken from the Gospel of St. John:
Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, `Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, `From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"
There is no doubt that God is still working in his Church and bestowing upon some saints special favors. As with Mary, God did other mighty works throughout history which are recorded. Moses, all those OT prophets; John the Baptist, the Apostles and Paul, to name a few who received special graces. These people gave themselves entirely over to the will of God and became vessels of greatness; Tradition supports calling them saints; and so does Scripture. I believe they are worthy of being called a saint, and I thoroughly enjoy reading their stories. I believe it to not only be an affront to the Body of Christ to insult his saints by comparing them to pagan gods, but a grave sin against the Holy Spirit to attribute his good works to the devil (or pagan gods). He is still performing miracles, which are not recorded in the Bible.
Normally, these saints were humble people who did their good works to the glory of God. I'm sure there are saints that have not received recognition by the Catholic Church. I trust that God knows this, too.
The Lord Jesus Christ established a Church with an order with leaders, with those who are ordained to govern and serve the flock. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, with the Lord Jesus as her head, and we the many members of his sacred Body.
The Church is feminine in that it is the spotless "bride of Christ" and has been given that image. These are allegorical images to convey a rich meaning and theology, much as the facets of Maiden, Mother and Crone.
Catholic Christians are not a denomination; we are the nomination of which all other Christian churches (denominations) can trace their origin. Our religion started not on the false-asserted notion of paganism, but by a theandric being who established his Church.
Christ did not come to save individuals apart from the community of believers. He is operative within his living Church. His grace is still imparted to the faithful through the Sacraments he established to continue the ongoing work of redemption so that each person can come into personal contact with their Lord and Savior.
The Apostolic Church recognized that the Old Covenant order was ended. We no longer keep the 613 ritual laws of Judaism. We no longer keep kosher, have to observe circumcision, or the Sabbath on Saturday.
For example, the Epistle to the Galatians is St. Paul's castigation against the Judaizers. --Sacred Scripture
Also, Sunday was observed as the new Sabbath of the New Covenant - the day of Resurrection. --Sacred Tradition
Roma locuta, causa finita est.
Peace of Christ to all.
"For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing." --St. Timothy
Posted by: sticks n stones | February 21, 2011 at 01:51 AM
Oh, come on, all the theological ramblings are great, but let's get to the nitty gritty: Don't all Catholic men want their women barefoot and pregnant? I mean a 6 child minimum for observant Catholic females is a little much, doncha think? That and the fact that the male believes God will provide so there is no need to be concerned with wether or not he can afford 6+ children, a number, btw, which makes it difficult for the wife to work for about a decade, assuming said Catholic patriarch isn't completely against his woman helping support the family financially.
Latin phrases shall not obscure the truth, I say!
Posted by: tm | February 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM
I do appreciate the arguments (very civilly fought by the way) between Mr. Sticks n Stones and Mr.France but I think the last comment posted here by Mr.tm just dropped the intelligence factor of the conversation by a large degree. Mr.tm, if you do not have anything intelligent to add to the subject matter then it would be best not to say anything at all.
Now pertaining to your conversation, women in our faith are actually held to a high regard, despite the convenient thought of many others that think lowly of our religion. You seem to overlook the fact that in our faith, there are brothers AND sisters. There is a large number of nuns that work to help others in their spiritual life and are often look up to with respect. The mother of our lord Jesus, Mary is by far the best example for the respect that the Catholic faith have for women.
Your comment about how god will provide for anything is used incorrectly. What it actually means that if you have faith in the lord, and will work to try to meet those means, then the lord will give you ability to meet that criteria as long as it pertains to activities that will better yours or others physical/spiritual life.
If you actually take the time to study or observe our practices, you would see a completely different picture than the one that you are projecting. I feel that my comment will probably have no effect on you because you like many, cannot let go of the many untruthful information about our religion and others like you will continue to use it to slander our religion because you lack the capacity to have individual thought about matters such as this. If you want to leave comments such as this, the best place for them would be Facebook or Twitter so that you don't soil the intelligent arguments/conversations that take place on this site.
Posted by: A high school student | February 22, 2011 at 09:46 AM
Thanks for the heads up. I had not realized there were basic, intermediate & advanced Catholics. So you say the basics like Facebook & Twitter while the advanced prefer blogs. Good to know. high school student, good to know.
Posted by: tm | February 22, 2011 at 06:40 PM
tm, I know you're being sarcastic. But you're not all wrong. You're not going to find much sophistication on Twitter and Facebook. Let's face it.
Very few people really know what Catholic teaching is. They just know a lot that isn't so.
Posted by: John | February 22, 2011 at 09:19 PM