The Vatican issued a directive which shut us down but it was all a big misunderstanding.

Actually, we place the blame squarely on the shoulders of our hosting service.

Sorry for any confusion.

When I started taking a closer look at the early church while still a Presbyterian I remember encountering what I considered a lot of ‘Catholic stuff.’ It happened innocently enough. For example, I would be reading the “Confessions” of St. Augustine and would encounter a scene where Augustine describes the relics of martyrs being venerated thorughout the city by Christians and I would stop and think, “Did I really just read that? I thought Augustine was a Reformed father!?” Before long, I realized that much of that ‘Catholic stuff’ was found in the early church well before my ‘Presbyterian stuff.’

Brantly has given a chronological outline which identifies the year when a particular ‘extra biblical’ witness relating to Christian doctrine was first recorded.

(A.D. 33 – death and resurrection of Christ)
A.D. 90 – the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice
(A.D. 95 – death of the last apostle, John)
A.D. 95 – apostolic succession
A.D. 110 – real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
A.D. 110 – the necessity of bishops to the Church, and the necessity of submitting to bishops
A.D. 150 – baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation
A.D. 150 – basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship
A.D. 155 – veneration of saints and their relics
A.D. 160 – Mary as the New Eve
A.D. 170 – use of the word ‘Trinity’
A.D. 180 – primacy of the bishop of Rome
A.D. 200 – ‘Trinity’, ‘Person’, ‘Substance’ formula
A.D. 367 – today’s 27 book New Testament canon
A.D. 1500s – Protestant Reformation

The bold doctrines are those held by Protestants and Catholics alike. The non-bold are examples of doctrines that most Protestants argue that Catholics got wrong. Those in (…) reflect historical events where there is no dispute.

Brantly discusses each point further in his post, which I recommend visiting.

When I was discovering the early church, what made an impression upon me was that “if all of those beliefs which most evangelicals tend to view as sure markers of the obviously perverted corruption of the Catholic Church were already there, then the same Church that settled the New Testament canon and fought the Trinitarian and Christological fights of the early Church was already well immersed in corruption, superstition, and heresy.”

What do I mean by ‘Liberalism?’

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining force and substance daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternize together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. (Blessed John Henry Newman’s Roman Address of 1879 as quoted in “Letters to a Young Catholic” by George Weigel)

As was true in Newman’s day there are lay people, theologians, clergy and religious to whom this definition of liberalism applies. This is possible because of the visibility of the Church where the tares can always be seen among the wheat until Christ returns.

When we see examples of liberalism in our church such as homilies laced with dissent or perhaps a nun advocating women’s ordination why doesn’t the bishop swoop through the window like a swat team member and lay the smack down? Imagining such a scenario is rather cathartic isn’t it?

Although it does not quite work like that there are times when situations get so bad that they cannot be ignored. In recent years there have been excommunications of people for supporting abortions or publicly advocating dogmas that are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. There have also been censures of teachers and repudiations of theological works. Here is one such example. Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson, a nun and professor of theology at Fordham (a Jesuit university), wrote an unorthodox book which among other things taught ideas about the Trinity which are inconsistent with the Catholic faith. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) responded with a 22 page condemnation of the work. This is not the first time the USCCB has identified a Catholic book as unorthodox and it won’t be the last. The response is a good read and a look into the mind of the United States Bishops when faced with heterodoxy.

There is also an ongoing inquiry into American religious orders called the Apostolic Visitation which many believe is, in part, a response to various religious orders participating in heterodox ideas.

So, while the response is sometimes painfully slow, the Church does respond to liberalism.

Liberalism may never die out completely but there is hope that the post Vatican II spirit of liberalism is certainly waning. Many studies have shown that the fastest growing religious orders in the Church are those which are marked with a spirit that desires to be obedient to the Magesterium. The orders that treat orthodoxy as “the greatest human adventure” are the orders which are bursting at the seams. Meanwhile, orders which are decidedly liberal are literally dying out. Young Catholic women seeking the religious life are not rushing to join orders where they can dress like they walked out of an episode of ‘Golden Girls’ and do yoga meditations but are seeking orders that are serious in their commitment to the habit, prayer and their vows. The same goes for vocations to the priesthood.  Catholic seminaries teaching orthodoxy are finding that they need to expand their dormitories, while liberal ones are dwindling.

In summary, there is liberalism in the Catholic Church, and we should be prepared to encounter it. Because of the charism Christ gave her, the Catholic Church will never lose a single dogma to liberalism in spite of the liberal element’s best efforts. The gates of hell cannot prevail over the Church. To see liberals fighting to influence the Church away from her dogmas is to witness the effects of the war between the forces of heaven and the forces of evil. Liberalism should be expected in the Church that Christ founded, because Satan hates the Church and wishes to destroy her.

So how are we to deal with liberalism in the Catholic Church? We ought to pray earnestly for orthodoxy to flourish, support religious orders that are obedient to the teaching of church, support Catholic schools that are obedient to the teaching of the church, volunteer in our parishes and if we encounter truly egregious heterodoxy in our parishes we should contact our bishops.

Lastly, if you are not yet Catholic and are turned off by seeing liberalism in the Church; know that Christ’s calling of you into the Catholic Church does not depend on waiting until there are no liberals or hypocrites in the Church. And know that the Catholic Church can certainly use you to join the cause.

If you are curious then I might first suggest that you try this exercise:

If you live in a small town, go to the corner store on the main street and ask the first people you meet, ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’

If you live in a big city, go downtown and ask the first people you meet, ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’

If you live in Singapore, go to the nearest market and ask the first people you meet, ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’

If you live in Nigeria, go to town and ask the first people you meet, “Where is the Catholic Church?’

In each scenario I am willing to wager that the vast majority of the people asked this question will give you directions to the nearest church. But not just any church. You will be given directions to a church which is pastored by a priest who has been entrusted by a bishop to celebrate the sacraments. And this bishop will be in communion with the bishop of Rome, Benedict the 16th.

I recently tested this theory. I work in Houston, TX in an office complex that is 40 stories high. I stood in the lobby for a few minutes and asked several passers-by if they knew where the Catholic Church is located. I asked ten people in the span of ten minutes. Two people said, ‘I do not know, sorry.’ The rest of them gave me rough directions to either St. Anne’s Catholic Church or St. Michael’s Catholic Church. Both parishes are about equidistant from the office. Both St. Anne’s and St. Michael’s are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If I were to leave the office and follow the directions I was given I would pass at least a half dozen other churches but those churches were not identified as the ‘Catholic Church’ by any person that I asked. If I stood there all day and asked one hundred people the same question, I would be shocked if anybody pointed me to a church that is not in communion with the bishop of Rome.

You can also examine the question this way:

Go outside and go to your neighbor’s house. Knock on the door. Ask your neighbor what church they attend. If they attend a church then ask, ‘Which one?’ After they tell you which one ask, “Is that a Catholic Church?” If they answer in the affirmative then I would be willing to wager that the church in question will be a church pastored by a priest who is in communion with the bishop of Rome. If they say, ‘No, it is not a Catholic Church’ then I am willing to bet that their church will not be pastored by a priest who is in communion with the bishop of Rome.

What is my point? My point is that when it comes to the question, Where is the Catholic Church?: “Securus judicat orbis terrarum” or “The verdict of the world is conclusive.” – St. Augustine (Contra Epist. Parmen. III.24)

The word ‘Catholic’ comes from the Greek ‘kata-holon’ and literally means ‘embracing all or pertaining to the whole.’ Members of the Catholic Church have been calling themselves ‘Catholic’ since at least Ignatius (AD 107).

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

- Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans

I believe that this is the very first extant example of the Church being called “Catholic” that we have. Notice how the identity of the Catholic Church is tied to the bishop and the celebration of the Eucharist and by the minister of the sacrament acting ‘in persona Christi.’

By the time the Apostles Creed is penned the usage is clearly widespread. The usage and understanding of the label ‘Catholic’ is not hidden within patristic sources.

St. Augustine writes:

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…and so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.

- Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397)

Notice how St. Augustine defines the Catholic Church. It is not merely a set of people who agree on doctrine. The Catholic Church spreads across ‘nations.’ The Catholic Church has ‘authority.’ The Catholic Church has ‘the succession of priests.’

There are more fathers who express similar ideas:

Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.

- Cyprian, To Florentius (A.D. 254)

This is what we mean by ‘Catholic Church.’

Called to Communion’s own Dr. David Anders recalls some highlights of his journey into the Catholic Church in this article which appears in a recent ‘Coming Home Network’ newsletter.

Dr. Anders received his Ph.D. from The University of Iowa in 2002, in Reformation History and Historical Theology, having written his dissertation on John Calvin.

So how did a Reformed church historian whose emphasis of study was Reformation history find his way into the Catholic Church?

Here are some highlights:

I began my Ph.D. studies in September of 1995. I took courses in early, medieval, and Reformation Church history. I read the Church Fathers, the scholastic theologians, and the Protestant Reformers. At each stage, I tried to relate later theologians to earlier ones, and all of them to the Scriptures. I had a goal of justifying the Reformation and this meant, above all, investigating the doctrine of justification by faith alone[...]

My first difficulty arose when I began to grasp what Augustine really taught about salvation. Briefly put, Augustine rejected “faith alone.” It is true that he had a high regard for faith and grace, but he saw these mainly as the source of our good works. Augustine taught that we literally “merit” eternal life when our lives are transformed by grace. This is quite different from the Protestant point of view[...]

No matter where I looked, on whatever continent, in whatever century, the Fathers agreed: salvation comes through the transformation of the moral life and not by faith alone. They also taught that this transformation begins and is nourished in the sacraments, and not through some individual conversion experience[...]

By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles. I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, but it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.

I invite you to visit the link to the article to find out more and share your thoughts.

What does a Catholic say to that? A Catholic can affirm that scripture is materially sufficient but cannot affirm that scripture is formally sufficient.

So what is the difference between material and formal sufficiency? For scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain (explicitly or implicitly) all that is needed for salvation. Many Catholic theologians, including Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict 16th) and Blessed John Henry Newman agree that scripture is materially sufficient.

On the other hand, for scripture to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all that is needed for salvation, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it (e.g. the church is not needed to interpret scripture.)

When one encounters a Protestant apologist asserting that a father taught the formal sufficiency of scripture it is very important to remember what that father taught about the relation of the church to scripture. It is simply a fact that if we are talking about the sufficiency of scripture for any given church father, not taking into account that father’s teaching on the church is a fatal error because what formal sufficiency claims is that there is no need for the church to interpret scripture.

The following is a brief survey of several fathers speaking explicitly about the relation of the church to scripture. Note: These are some of the same fathers who are being quoted by some Protestant apologists in an effort to prove that they taught the formal sufficiency of scripture:

Athanasius

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.” – Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D..

Hilary of Poitiers

“They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” – On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355)

Vincent of Lerins

“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, we must answer Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.” – Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 2 (A.D. 434).

For a more detailed account of the Catholic Church and Her relation to Holy Scripture please read our article Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and the Question of Interpretive Authority.

Basically the argument is that in the first century the church did not have a monarchical bishop and was instead ruled by a group of elders who were all equal.

The main work that has been cited by those putting forth this hypothesis is “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries” by Peter Lampe. Here is most of the entire work on Google.

One of Lampe’s conclusions, the one that is being embraced by the Reformed apologetic blogosphere¹ is presented by Lampe thus:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city.”

The intended connotation to all of this is that apostolic succession and in particular the office of the Bishop of Rome was a 2nd century invention. This has caused various Reformed bloggers to conclude that the Papacy is an invention and that apostolic succession is a ‘fraud.’²

This post is not attempt to give a thorough treatment of Lampe’s work. However, the question must arise, “How did Peter Lampe get to this conclusion? What evidence has Peter Lampe uncovered that is more reliable than early witnesses to the succession of bishops such as the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)?”

Therefore, the challenge is the following:

Can you name one piece of historical evidence that meets these two conditions:

(1) it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century, and;

(2) it is stronger evidence than is the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)

(Please show why it is stronger evidence than is St. Irenaeus’ list.)³

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

1. The fact that Lampe draws various conclusions in his study that these same Reformed bloggers would necessarily reject out of hand is not discussed here but has been demonstrated elsewhere such as here.
2. Example here.
3. See comments here Ecclesial Deism This was originally offered by Bryan Cross.

Please put any comments in that thread and not here so we can keep the conversation in one place.

I received the following email from a friend who is Reformed Baptist but attends a PCA Church:

“I read this article today and I’m interested in your specific thoughts on the author’s arguments.”

The article is from John Piper. Here is a link.

John Piper, as you may know, is a fairly prominent Reformed Baptist pastor and author of over 30 books. He wrote the above article in an attempt to give Mary what he believes is her proper place in the Christian story.

Here was my response:

“Thanks for sharing this with me.

I am saddened that Mary is such a perceived ‘stumbling block’ to the unity of Christendom. Few doctrines are more misunderstood than the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Churches). I am in a unique spot because I have been both a non-Catholic and a Catholic. Speaking from experience, I believe the root of the disagreement over Mary is not really the Marian devotion but the doctrine of the communion of the saints.

The Church’s teachings on Mary are Christocentric and they are born of the scriptures. It is true that there is not a whole lot written explicitly about Mary in the Bible but what is written about her is simply amazing.

Let me give you just one example, I’ll be brief.

Read 2nd Samuel Chapter 6 and then read Luke 1 about the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth.

The 2nd Samuel story is a narrative about King David before the Ark of the Covenant. This narrative is about a journey the Ark took in the hills of Judah. Compare the narrative line by line with Luke 1 and the visitation of Mary narrative. Note all the similarities in the passages.

Both the Ark and Mary “arose and made a journey” (2nd Sam 6:2 and Luke 1:39) to the ‘hills” of Judah. Both the Ark and Mary were greeted with ‘shouts of joy.’ The word used for ‘shout’ in Luke 1 is ‘anafametzen‘ and is a very rare word which was only used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the Ark of the Covenant yet here we have Scripture using that word to describe Elizabeth before Mary.

What did David say before the Ark of the Covenant in vs 9? How does that statement compare to what Elizabeth says to Mary?

2nd Sam 6:9 – David before the Ark says, “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?”
Luke 1:43 – Elizabeth says before Mary, “And why is this granted to me that the mother of my LORD should come to me?

Elizabeth greets Mary in exactly the same way that David greeted the Ark.

There is more. The entrance of the Ark and the entrance of Mary are seen as a blessing to the entire household, Obededom’s house was blessed by the Ark’s visit and Elizabeth’s household was blessed by Mary’s visit. Then, finally the Ark of the Covenant and Mary both remain in their respective houses for three months (2nd Sam 6:11-Luke 1:56) Bare in mind that Scripture tells us that both of these events happened in the same geographic area.

So, the Catholic Church, drawing from this Scriptural mystery, has always considered Mary the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Old Covenant contained the word of God (10 commandments), Aaron’s staff (the priesthood) and manna from heaven. Mary contained in her womb the word of God (logos John 1), the priesthood (Jesus, the high priest) and the eucharist (the everlasting manna from heaven John 6).

Let me apply what the Church knows about Mary as the Ark of the Covenant to the Church’s teaching on Mary. One Marian doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven after her death. Is that episode explicit in scripture? No, it isn’t. But, it is foreshadowed about the Ark of the Covenant. Psalm 132:8 says, “Arise oh Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the Ark of your might.” The place the Lord is arising is to what David calls “Zion” which as you know is heaven. Jesus dies and takes his Ark with him. Tradition holds that the Ark that Jesus brought to heaven is Mary. Also, read Rev 11 and 12. John sees the Ark in heaven in the context of a ‘woman’ clothed with the sun who is giving birth to a male son whom the dragon is wanting to devour.

We can go ‘one by one’ on doctrines of Mary but I’ll simply say that the Church’s teaching on Mary is Christ-centered and biblical. I am sorry that Piper’s tradition does not allow this understanding.

I can also say that Piper’s use of the New Testament in some places is misguided. He seems to argue that Jesus had brothers based on Acts 1:14. However, it is a fact that the word translated to ‘brother’ is also used for ‘close kinfolk/cousin’ in the Bible and that if you read the context of Acts 1:14 the ‘brothers’ in Jesus’ company number about 120! Surely, Piper does not think that Mary had 120 sons! Further, Piper wants to deflect attention from Mary by noting that Scripture often does not call her by name but only by “woman.” Piper misses the point. Mary being called ‘woman’ harkens back to Eve whom Adam called ‘woman” and this proclaims along with other biblical data that Mary is the new Eve as Christ is the new Adam.

In the paragraph beginning with, “Calling Jesus’ mother the mother of James and Joseph is striking…“, Piper suggests that Mary had brothers but he is mistaken as John 19:25 and Mark 15:47 prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers as the Mary described here in Matthew is Mary ‘the wife of Clopas’, the sister of the Virgin Mary.