A Letter To A Roman Catholic Teacher

I have written this response to your lectures. It was good for me, as an evangelical, to sit under a faithful

representation of Roman Catholic belief. I salute your integrity as a Catholic, being true to what you

espouse. You are a well-prepared and gifted teacher and it was a pleasure to listen to you. However, there

are some points I would like to raise with you for further discussion. I was hoping there would be an

open-ended meeting for question-answer, but maybe a personal conference would be better. After you

have a chance to review these points, I would like to get together to discuss them if you are able.

First, it is worth noting that there were significant parts of your lectures, such as Session 1 in which we

would be in total agreement. Who Christ was and is, is an issue that is not in dispute. However, significant

disagreement enters the scene when you discuss how it is we now relate to this Christ. This, of course, is

just as crucial as the doctrine of Christ's person. Because as Jesus Himself says, many will say to him

“Lord, Lord,” but will not have related to Him in the way He himself has proscribed. Secondly, and as

you have been able to tell from our website, we have no dispute with “justification by works” as do many

of our fellow evangelicals. So, once again, we would be in substantial agreement on that point. However,

the issue then becomes what works are to be done in faithfulness to Jesus Christ our divide

becomes apparent.

1. Peter as the Rock: First, I(and many evangelicals) have no dispute with Jesus calling Peter the rock on

whom the church is to be built. This is clearly Jesus' intent as He talks to “Peter” which means “rock.”

Only reactionary evangelicals would deny this. I have run into this myself, when one baptist deacon

suspected me of compromise with Catholicism because of my interpretation! However, we must

remember that it is not insignificant that it is in response to Peter's confession that Jesus attributes Peter's

significance for the future of the church. A short time later Jesus would call Peter “Satan”, once again in

response to his confession, this time a false one (“Never Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to

you!”). We must hold the two together--evangelicals emphasize the confession aspect of Peter's

significance, and Catholics the person/office aspect. A larger view of biblical context shows that Peter's

person/office significance rests on his fidelity regarding his confession. In other words, Jesus never

conceives of Peter being “the rock” on which the church is built regardless of his fidelity to the truth. It is

in response to Peter's faithful confession that Jesus elevates Peter. And it is in response to Peter's infidelity

in which he declares him in league with the one who seeks to destroy the church, namely Satan.

As you have acknowledged, and history clearly shows, there are many popes who have had no regard for

the truth of Christ. There have been infamously ungodly men who have sat “in the chair of Peter.”

Because the Catholic church emphasizes the person/office of Peter over the confession, you would still

recognize these evil men (in league with Satan) in the line of Peter who has legitimate jurisdiction over

the church of Christ. This, we would say, is way beyond the scope of what Jesus meant in Matthew 16.

What Jesus clearly meant was that Peter, as he faithfully follows Christ, will be “the rock” on whom the

church is built. Evangelicals are correct to join the confession with the person. This passage is also

prophetic, in that Jesus in effect states that Peter will be faithful to Christ (and not a greedy and lustful

man) and so be the type of man the church can be built on.

Biblical history shows that the early church regarded Peter to be respected only in so far as he was faithful

to Christ. As I mentioned in one meeting, the manner in which Paul confronted “the rock” is only

conceivable if Paul himself understood Peter's confession to be central in fulfilling his role. It is quite

clear, that Paul was willing to part with Peter himself if Paul found him, “the rock”, to be unfaithful to

Christ's gospel. If Peter possessed the role of being “the rock” regardless of his confession but simply by

his person/office, then Paul's attitude toward Peter is inconceivable. Galatians 1 and 2 reveals an apostle

who regarded himself to not be dependent on Peter in any way. In fact, that is one of the purposes of

Paul's writing. To show that “I did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I

received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”(1:11,12) What he received, he did not receive from Peter. In

fact, he makes a special point to write that when he received the gospel he “did not consult with any man,

not did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was...”(1:16). He makes a special

point to let churches know that he did not consult Peter and the others! In fact, he singles out Peter as one

he met 3 years after receiving this revelation from Christ and that meeting was for only 15 days. Why

would he mention the 15 day period? The whole context shows Paul's concern to demonstrate his lack of

dependance on “any man”- including Peter “the rock.” Fifteen days are mentioned to show that this

period was inconsequential for what Paul has come to know regarding the gospel. This sets up Paul's

willingness to confront Peter and the other apostles regarding faithfulness to the confession of Christ in

chapter 2. Paul is quite forward on this when he states that he went to Jerusalem “to set before them the

gospel I preach among the Gentiles.” Who is “them?” It becomes clear “they” are the apostles Peter and

the rest. He goes on, “But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was

running or had run my race in vain.”(2:2) Those who “seemed to be leaders” are the same ones who are

“reputed to be pillars” in 2:9, namely James, Peter and John. Paul was going to Jerusalem quite prepared

to dress down “those who were apostles before he was” and on whom he had absolutely no dependance in

regard to gospel he preached. In fact, he was concerned that “those who were apostles before he was,

those who seemed to be important, and reputed to be pillars,” would be the very ones to undermine Paul's

faithful preaching and so cause his ministry to be in vain! It is in this context that Paul writes to the many

churches in Galatia and reports how he did in fact publicly confront “the rock” on whom they were built.

“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong”

(2:11). “In the wrong” is a soft interpretation of the Greek. Several translations record this as “because he

stood condemned.” This represents the force of this word in the Greek. “When I saw that they were not

acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said the Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live

like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish

customs?'”(2:14)

Clearly, Paul did not conceive of Peter's calling as “the rock” to consist in his person/office regardless of

his confession. Paul's attitude toward Peter is inconceivable if this was the case. He clearly felt no need to

get advice from or seek direction from Peter in any way. This whole scenario is at odds with Roman

Catholic conceptions of papal authority and jurisdiction. Even though Jesus said what he said to Peter in

Matthew 16, Paul's mindset reveals that this meant that his vocation as “the rock” was dependent on

Peter's fidelity. It also shows that Paul, part of the church, did not conceive of himself as subject to Peter

as vicar of Christ in the Roman Catholic sense. Important to note is that Paul wrote the letter to the

Galatians, which was sent to a whole province of churches who were tempted to be deceived in the same

way Peter was, so he writes publicly of Peter's error. This reveals that Paul did not conceive of the church

as a whole being under the jurisdiction of Peter as vicar of Christ in the Roman Catholic sense. What this

shows is that Matthew 16 and biblical history is a consistent witness that Peter's vocation as “the rock”

was tied to his faithfulness in confessing Christ through a faithful living and confessing of the gospel of

Christ.

Another place where Peter's place as “the rock” appears out of step with Roman Catholic views is the

council in Jerusalem, not Rome. The bishop of that church was James, not Peter. How the whole thing

was carried out is quite of step with Roman Catholic conception. Peter appears at the council as an

apostolic/missionary witness to the Jews along with Paul, who was an apostolic/missionary witness to the Gentiles.

They appear at the council to bear witness to “the apostles and elders”, of God's work among the Gentiles.

The council convenes to decide how proceed with evangelization of the Gentiles and then issues a statement through James, the bishop of

Jerusalem. Here is the order of events as recorded in Acts 15:

1. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed the council with his testimony (15:7-11).

2. After Peter, Paul and Barnabas addressed the council with their testimony (15:12).

3. “When they finished, James spoke up, 'Brothers listen to me. Simon has described to us how

God at first showed......(then he concludes). “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not

make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Then James makes a concluding

statement about what they should decree concerning the Gentiles “coming in” to the church.

If they understood Peter's call as “the rock” to mean he has final authority and jurisdiction, does it make

sense that this council would follow this procedure? Would Peter speak first or last? Once again, it seems

inconceivable that this meeting would be carried out in this way, with James hearing all witnesses,

including Peter as one of them, and then make a pronouncement saying “It is my judgment, therefore...”

You must admit, that if Peter and James were depicted in reverse roles in this biblical record, it would

bear more consistent witness to your Roman Catholic views. In fact, it would line up much better with

how the Magisterium works, with the pope hearing all witnesses and then making his pronouncement, “It

is my judgment, therefore...” as a papal bull given for the direction of the church. This is not how things

functioned in Acts 15.

These biblical events make better sense, if Peter's significance as “the rock” is borne out in biblical

history as it was actually recorded. In other words, Jesus meant in Matthew 16 what actually happened

in biblical history. It is quite clear that Peter was the first among equals in the early chapters of Acts. He

was the leader of the twelve and the early small band of disciples, and contributed to the early growth of

the church through his preaching. There is no need to create something more than what actually was the

case, historically. However, as I have shown, to create something more is to put yourself out of step with

biblical history. Not only that, it is to put you out of step with the earliest church fathers and bishops as I

will show.

2. The Claim: The Early Fathers were Roman Catholic: In a lecture you quoted the early church

fathers as being clear and unequivocal witnesses of Roman authority and jurisdiction. For the sake of

time, I will focus on the one father, Cyprian, as being the clearest witness of all of them all. You quoted

him extensively, and this makes sense, since he seems to say the most. This seemed to be the highlight of

your lecture. I have read the earliest fathers fairly thoroughly in my research on another subject.

However, I have always heard that Cyprian was the most clear on unity with Rome. I began reading his

treatises, and found the section you quoted and looked more into the historical context of that quotation.

The section you quoted, as far as I can tell, comes from Cyprian's treatise concerning the Novatian schism

in Rome:

“If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments.

There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto

thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail

against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on

earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’

And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles,

after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I

you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever

sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the

origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was

Peter, endowed with alike partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.

(Treatise #1)

Interesting to note is that Cyprian is encountering and writing against a schism that took place within the

church at Rome. A presbyter in that church, Novatian, had broken with the bishop over a disagreement on

how to receive lapsed Christians back into the church. Novatian favored a more rigorous approach while

the bishop favored a more lenient approach. A sharp dispute developed and Novatian along with other

presbyters broke with the Roman church and began their own church. This Cyprian rejects in the strongest

terms and appeals for unity, with unity originating from Peter and the apostles. At first glance, it seems

that Cyprian was an advocate of your understanding of visible church unity- that is, loyalty and

submission to the Roman bishop. “He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning

from one.” I, like you, take Cyprian to mean Peter.

However, when we take a broader view of Cyprian, it becomes clear he is speaking of unity within a local

congregation. It is also true that Cyprian cannot be used as a support for universal Roman jurisdiction.

This is not what he was advocating by his statement of Peter as the “origin of unity.” How do we know this?

We know this from another dispute that took place, this time not within the Roman church, but with the

Roman church and her bishop. This is discerned from the seventh council of Carthage, which was formed by no less than 87 African

bishops representing their respective churches in response to Stephen the bishop in Rome. The dispute

arose over whether or not to recognize the baptism of someone coming into the church who had

previously been baptized in an heretical communion. The church in Rome was advocating not requiring a

re-baptism, and was insisting other churches follow her lead. In other words, the bishop of Rome was

operating on the premise that he had authority and jurisdiction over the other churches. This is what

Cyprian and the other 87 bishops objected to in the strongest terms. Here are some quotes from

statements made at this council;

“Cyprian said: ‘You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written

to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as

well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently

determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the

Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in

accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had

said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon

this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one

from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself

up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does compel his colleague to the necessity of

obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper

right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all

wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring

us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”

Clearly, Cyprian is referring to Roman incursion. Of special note is his statement, “Neither does any of us

set himself up as bishop of bishops.” This is precisely what the Roman bishop was trying to do, and what

the Roman Catholic church insists he has the divine right to do. The following are testimonies of bishops

who submitted their written opinion to the council in response to the church in Rome.

Januarius of Lambesis wrote: “According to the authority of the HolyScriptures, I decree that all heretics

must be baptized, and so admitted into the holy Church.”

Castus of Sicca wrote: “He who with contempt of the truth presumes to follow custom, is either envious and

malignant in respect of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or is ungrateful in respect of God, by

whose inspiration His Church is instructed.”

Euchratius of Thence wrote: “God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth,

has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying:

‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,

and of the Holy Ghost.’ Thus the false and wicked baptism of heretics must be rejected by us, and refuted

with all detestation, from whose month is expressed poison, not life, not celestial grace, but blasphemy of

the Trinity. And therefore it is manifest that heretics who come to the Church ought to be baptized with the

sound and Catholic baptism, in order that, being purified from the blasphemy of their presumption, they

may be reformed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

Libosus of Vaga wrote: “In the Gospel the Lord says, ‘I am the truth.’ He said not, ‘I am the custom.’

Therefore the truth being manifest, let custom yield to truth; so that, although for the past any one was not

in the habit of baptizing heretics in the Church, let him now begin to baptize them.”

Zosimus of Tharassa wrote: “When a revelation of the truth is made, let error give place to truth; because

Peter also, who previously circumcised, yielded to Paul when he preached the truth.”

Felix of Bussacene wrote: “In the matter of receiving heretics without the baptism of the

Church, let no one prefer custom to reason and truth, because reason and truth always exclude custom.”

Cyprian of Carthage wrote: “The letter which was written to our colleague Jubaianus very fully expresses

my opinion, that, according to evangelical and apostolic testimony, heretics, who are called adversaries

of Christ and Antichrists, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one

baptism of the Church, that they may be made of adversaries, friends, and of Antichrists, Christians.”

Epistle 69 section 3 Written by Cyprian concerning the controversy over baptizing heretics: “Neither must

we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first

the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterward about

circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he

held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he

despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but

admitted the counsel of truth, and easily yielded to the lawful reason which Paul asserted, furnishing thus

an illustration to us both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own

opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are usefully and wholesomely

suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful.”

In all of these writings, it is pertinent to note the consistent theme with these bishops. They consistently

put forward the necessity of following truth or what is “lawful.” This, for them, was not defined by

Roman authority, but by the Scriptures. In fact, they cite the Scriptures over and against the Roman

bishop. It is apparent that the Roman bishop was claiming some unique authority for himself, because

Cyprian found it necessary to point out that there is no “bishop of bishops.” Also, the rejection of

“custom” as a valid claim for a practice is pronounced, once again, pointing to the fact that the Roman

bishop was attempting to do just that. This is strikingly represented by the bishop Libosus of Vaga who

wrote, “In the Gospel the Lord says, 'I am the truth', he said not, 'I am the custom.' Therefore, the truth

being manifest, let custom yield to truth.”

It appears then, that the environment of the early church was not one in which the kind of Roman

authority put forward by the Roman Catholic church existed. Also, while Cyprian had an evident concern

for unity, with the one church coming from Peter and the original apostles (this is not disputed by

evangelicals), it is not at all clear Cyprian would have been an advocate of the kind of papal rule that the

Catholic church asserts today. Nor would they have been receptive to an appeal to “sacred custom” has an

equal authority to Holy Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary.

3. Caricatures; Visibility and Unity: I understand the need to expose straw men and that evangelicals

are more than able to caricature Catholics. But it seems Catholics are able to do the same. You

characterized evangelicals as not believing in a “visible church.” This is not correct. Evangelicals make a

distinction between what is visible and what is invisible. They do not deny a visible communion, they just

assert that not all who visibly bind themselves to the visible church through baptism are part of the

invisible church. We believe that there are those who falsely profess Christ, and yet are members of a

visible communion. It appears to me you do the same. Do you believe that all those who are baptized and

take the mass are true Catholics? You seemed to deny this in your lectures. Not only that, holding that

Protestants are truly Catholic, though not in visible communion creates the category of an invisible

spiritual communion. I am not sure your visible church is any more visible than the Protestant church.

Another caricature that needs revisiting, and is related to the previous discussion is the insistence of

Catholic superiority due to the obedience as a unified communion. This seems to be a superficial claim.

You overemphasized Catholic unity by highlighting evangelical disunity with the repeated statement of the

existence of 35,000 or so denominations being a ridiculous phenomenon given Jesus' prayer for unity.

Your point was simple: this can't be what Jesus meant and the Roman Catholic unity is what Jesus meant.

While the point is simple, it is also simplistic. It is what Jesus would call a “judgment by mere

appearances.” The reality is, the Catholic church is made up of sharp divisions of competing factions, all vying for

influence. You have Trent Catholics, and modernist Catholics, you have Vatican II Catholics, you have

charismatic Catholics, and revivalistic Catholics and Traditional Catholics. You have intense debates and

real substantive disagreement between Catholics (i.e. Hans Kung - still an ordained priest, vs. the present

pope). A person can open up the phone book and look for a charismatic Catholic church, because that is

your personal preference. Or another Catholic can look for a Traditional Catholic church because they feel

in touch with the historic church through the Latin Mass. This is not all that different from evangelical

choosing a communion from various evangelical churches based on a certain personal preference.

The reality is, the evangelical world is unified in transcendent confessional ways just as Catholicism is

unified in transcendent confessional ways. Examples of this evangelical unity abound. I graduated from a

seminary that served several dozen denominations at least. All the students would gather together and

hear messages and worship the Lord with one voice. Promise Keepers is a para-church ministry where

hundreds of thousands of Christians would gather in visible unity. Denominations, some argue, has

preserved unity by enabling specific convictions to be expressed within a local communion while living at

peace (in unity) with others. Just because they are in different communions, doesn't mean there is not an

overarching unity. I mention this, not to assert that denominations are the ideal. In some sense they are the result of our

fallen condition, and serve a good purpose until Christ comes. But you would need to say the same thing.

Does internal division and strife and debate and the pressing of competing agendas within the Catholic

communion represent Christ's ideal? Is this the type of unity for which Christ prayed? I hope not! I do not

believe we will be debating or competing in heaven.

4. The Eucharist- You made a significant comment, deriding the view of the elements of the Eucharist as

symbolic by flatly stating that “symbols don't save us.” But surely you don't mean that. You yourself

taught that the priest and the pope are representatives of Christ. They are symbolic of the Christ who is

visibly absent. Yet, according to you we cannot be saved apart from their ministry. Let's think about the

Old Testament Temple. Wouldn't you grant that the temple was symbolic of the heavenly temple as

recorded in Hebrews 9? Or that the spotless lamb brought for sacrifice was symbolic of the spotless

Lamb, Jesus Christ? Or that the high priest was a shadow, a type, a symbol of the true High Priest, who is

Jesus? And isn't it true that the faithful Israelite was saved and accepted through the ministrations of these

symbolic elements commanded by God? In your zeal to promote Roman Catholic Eucharistic belief, you

have denounced as ineffective the way God has always used symbols to save His people. Let's consider

baptism. Why would John baptize in the Jordan River? Isn't it clear that baptism (which means

immersion) is symbolic of being buried in death and rising again from the grave? (Romans 6) Given our

Lord's great propensity to use symbols to save his people, we should not be predisposed to reject the

Eucharist as a symbolic event by an assertion that “symbols don't save.”

Before we get to Jesus' much analyzed words, “This is my body” - let's consider the Passover. We know

this celebration is rooted in an event that occurred in Egypt when God struck the Egyptians with a curse,

the death of the firstborn. The Passover involved the death of a sacrificial victim and the spreading of

blood in order that God would “pass over” the Israelites and strike the Egyptians. That lamb of course was

symbolic and represented a future sacrificial Passover lamb who would save His people. But you would

not deny that that symbol sacrificed in Egypt saved the faithful Israelite. Of course, ultimately God saved

the Israelites, but he decreed that through the death of a symbolic lamb he would save them. In fact, he

then decreed that the Israelites were to “celebrate” that historic Passover event, in which the people were

redeemed from Egyptian slavery. So every year they were to sacrifice another lamb, symbolic now in two

directions. First, the Passover looked back on God's redemption of Israel, and the lamb sacrificed much

later, while living in Canaan, was a symbolic lamb that reminded the people of God's faithfulness in the

past. Nobody believed that lamb was miraculously and mysteriously transformed into the original lamb

sacrificed in Egypt. Nor would anyone find this necessary, because it was at heart a “celebration” of the

God who saved them from Egypt. It was through the Passover they would “remember” God's covenant

faithfulness. However, what they were less cognizant of, was the fact that all future lambs sacrificed “in

remembrance” of the Passover, would also symbolically point forward the the great sacrifice to come, the

true Spotless Lamb Jesus. However, you would not claim that God would not continue to save and uphold

Israel as they continued to faithfully observe the Passover year after year as one of God's central

stipulations. Symbols have always been used by God in His saving plan. We should not find this strange.

So now we come to that great moment in the upper room. We must remember what this meal was first and

foremost. It was a Passover celebration. it is amazing to me how this crucial point has been ignored by

Catholics and evangelicals. The biblical account could not be more clear:

On the the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover

lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the

Passover?' So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, 'God into the city, and a man carrying a jar of

water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, “The Teacher asks: Where is my

guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” He will show you a large upper room,

furnished and made ready. Make preparations for us there.' The disciples left, went into the city and found

things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover” (Matthew 14:12-16).

Our terminology can serve to obscure this Passover reality. I understand why the term Eucharist is used.

Whatever term we use, we must “remember” the meal was understood by Jesus and his disciples to be a

Passover celebration. So Jesus in taking the bread and cup, took elements that had been commonly used

in the Old Covenant Passover. But in his teaching he clearly invests those elements with new meaning.

The focus moves from unleavened bread as a remembrance of the hurried escape from Egypt, to bread

being a remembrance of his body as the new covenant sacrificial lamb. The cup of blessing moves from

being a cup celebrating God's blessing of Israel, to a cup which celebrates “the blood of the new

covenant.” Both elements would be consumed, as Jesus Himself put it, “in remembrance of me.” Here is

the consistency of terminology with the Old Covenant Passover. Jesus is giving them a new Passover

meal in which the symbol of the Old Covenant lamb finds its fulfillment in Him, in his death, which will

come about shortly at the cross. However, the language reveals that the function of the New Covenant

Passover remains identical to the function of the Old Covenant Passover. Just as the Old Covenant

Passover was a “celebration” of what God did in Egypt, so the New Covenant Passover would be a

celebration of what Jesus would do at the cross. Just as the Old Covenant Passover “reminded” God's

people of His covenant faithfulness, so the Eucharist, or the New Covenant Passover, would be done “in

remembrance” of God's redemption through Christ at the cross. The Passover function is firmly reflected

in Passover language.

The crucial historic moment celebrated by Israel, was God's redeeming work to deliver Israel from Egypt.

No Israelite would ever conceive of the Passover “celebration” as a literal repetition of those actual

events. In fact, this would serve to undermine the very purpose of the Passover as given by God as a

celebration of those profound events. Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus did not intend the

same signification by instituting a New Covenant Passover. When he says “eat this in remembrance of

me,” we have to ask, “In remembrance of what?” Is it not the singular and profound event of His death on

the cross? The breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood? That historic event that set us free

from slavery to to sin and death, just as God set Israel free from Egypt? An event to not meant to be

repeated-- but remembered. The Old Covenant remembrance took place through eating and drinking, and

so does the New Covenant remembrance. The Israelites ate the sacrificial lamb that saved them at the

actual Passover. Future Israelites were to eat a sacrificial lamb that represented that lamb in the past. They

were to eat in remembrance. Doesn't it make good Passover sense that Jesus would raise unleavened

bread and say to his disciples, “This is my body broken for you, eat in remembrance of me”? However,

Passover logic would lead us to believe that Jesus never meant to imply that they should think they would

be actually eating his body as they ate the unleavened bread. Just as the Israelites would have no

conception of eating the actual lamb sacrificed in Egypt. To think this would result in a denial of its God-

given function, as not a repetition of the saving event itself, but a celebration of the One and Only historic

saving moment.

You must grant that when we read the words, “this is my body” we have a couple of options for

interpretation. Just because Jesus equates the bread with his body with a predicate nominative does not

prove he meant to be taken either literally or symbolically. This simple phrase needs context for

interpretation. If this was in fact a Passover meal, wouldn't it be wise to recognize that as our wider

context that helps us understand what Jesus meant?

It may be objected that Jesus taught in John 6 that we must eat his body and drink his blood. It is

sometimes treated in a cavalier way that this is obviously evidence for the Catholic understanding of the

Eucharist (Passover!). If it is granted that Jesus was referring to a future eating of the New Covenant

Passover, then all we have to do is go back to the Passover and see what occurred. The Passover sacrifice

was to be eaten in its entirety with nothing left. True enough. But, once again, we must not forget, that the

eating of the Passover meal was a “celebration” of a past event-- not a repeating of that original event.

The future Passover lambs were symbolic of the original Passover, God's redemption of Israel from

slavery. Likewise, our eating of Jesus' body and the drinking of his blood, is not a repeating of the original

event of God's redemption, but a celebration, as Jesus Himself said-- “a remembrance.”

This passage, like Jesus' words, “This is my body,” could be taken in various ways. Ironically, the most

literal interpretation was apparently the understanding of his hearers in John 6. They went away from him

because of the graphic description of eating flesh and drinking blood. They supposed he was advocating

cannibalism. Even you would not be that literal in your interpretation. Even good Catholics would not

suppose he was offering his left calf for a good hearty lunch, or that he was about to slit his wrists to

provide a drink! You would suppose he was speaking cryptically of a future Eucharistic meal in which

bread and wine would be transubstantiated into His actual body and blood, though in appearance, or

“accidentally” bread and wine. As I am sure you are aware, these categories of “substance” and

“accidence” are philosophical categories of the philosopher Aristotle adopted by Aquinas to explain what

he thought Jesus meant. This was a tragic mistake that did not take the Passover into consideration. We

don't need a pagan philosopher (Aristotle) to help us understand the Eucharist, all we need is biblical

theological history (God's Holy Scripture).

Of course, this transubstantiation understanding is a possible interpretation, just as the most literal one

already mentioned (eating Jesus' left calf for lunch). Or Jesus could be referring to a future Passover meal

in which his body and blood is symbolically consumed just like all Passover meals. That he was referring

to Himself as the once for all time Passover sacrifice, who would need to be consumed, just like the Old

Covenant Passover sacrifice needed to be consumed in its entirety. Literalism is not required by John 6,

nor does it make the best possible sense given all of the the contextual factors involved which I have

already brought forth. Rather, a literal eating of Jesus' body as a Passover meal is a foreign element, not at

all required to make the best sense of what occurred in the upper room, and in fact, serves to obscure and

pervert the purpose of the Eucharist. How the Eucharist is perverted by the interpretational literalism can

be seen in the holding back of the cup from the laity, because it was seen as too holy to be served (don't

spill the real and holy blood of Jesus!!). The church feared the literal blood would be spilled and

desecration would occur. This is only one example of many that could be brought forth that shows the

literalistic practice perverts the original intent.

5. The Canon and Catholic Tradition: You made the point that Protestants actually have a faith founded

on Catholic tradition, because we hold to a canon which was established through an ecumenical council.

Therefore, you believe this council to be evidence that “sacred tradition” is shown to be on a par with

“sacred Scripture” because it is the church tradition from this council that establishes what “sacred

Scripture” actually is. So I would take you to mean that “sacred tradition” authoritatively establishes

“sacred Scripture.” In other words, the Scriptures are what they are on the basis of “sacred tradition.” To

put it another way, the church is God's vehicle of authority which decrees the parameters of God's

authoritative texts.

It seems to me, from the above rationale, that you actually have understated your case. If I understand you

correctly, the church, or “sacred tradition,” actually has primacy or authority over “sacred Scripture.” The

church has God-given authority to determine what sacred Scripture is. If a person is to ask, “How am I to

know where it is I hear the word of God?” We are to seek this answer from the church. We are told by the

church, “It is from these written books.” So the Word of God - to the church- (sacred tradition) tells the

people what sacred Scripture is. The church determines Scripture. So we need the church before Scripture.

Of course, this logic seems to be followed consistently by Roman Catholic teaching. Not only do we need

the church to know what Scripture is, we also need the church to know what Scripture means. Once again,

the primacy seems to be sacred tradition. Sacred tradition stands as the foundation and source of the

identity of sacred texts, and the understanding of what sacred texts are saying to the church.

This dynamic is reflected in the language Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine

concerning “sacred tradition”: “Tradition is the means by which Revelation and grace are mediated. The

term refers to the concrete, historical, and personal means by which Revelation is taught, internalized,

and lived out.” And again, “Sacred Tradition carries, transmits, hands on, or mediates Divine

Revelation.” And again, “It expresses Revelation from on high, suitable for transforming life here

below...”(p.603). Being the “mediator” by which Revelation is made “suitable for ...life here below” it

becomes clear that tradition is the true touchstone for Revelation. Tradition becomes the place in which

people live, as mediated by the church (tradition).

This is no minor point, and it is my belief that it is on this hinge that the whole Roman Catholic system

swings. This is why practices and beliefs in the Catholic church have multiplied over the years which

have either no relation to sacred texts or a strained one, at best (the perpetual virginity of Mary, celibacy

of the priesthood, the proliferation of sacraments, etc.). This can happen because sacred tradition holds

primacy, and sacred texts are made to fit through contorted and strained interpretation, or the vaguest

allusions. Of course, if we grant sacred tradition its primacy, then there is no legitimate critique. Charges

of “strained and contorted interpretations” are made from unbelief. To be unsatisfied with the “vaguest

allusions” to sacred text for a church practice has to come from a vantage point other than the Catholic

system. On the other hand, for these things to cause no qualms of conscience is to show that the primacy

of sacred tradition holds sway. This must be why many Catholics in defense of their practice will be

content to state, “The church says...” or “Church teaching is...” as if this closes the case.

The development of the canon in church history is a fascinating study, with lots of twists and turns along

the way. However, it seems this issue comes down to an understanding of what is taking place when

people embrace a writing as sacred Scripture. Or if we push back further, when God's Word encounters

men. Of course, Jesus Christ is “the Word” in human flesh. Then the Scriptures are God's Word in written

form. I think you would agree, both are God's authoritative Word for men.

When Jesus, (the Word made flesh) asked Peter, “Who do you say I am?” and Peter responded, “You are

the Christ, the Son of the living God,” was Peter making an authoritative pronouncement that established

Jesus as the Christ, or was he recognizing the already established fact? The whole exchange reveals quite

clearly that Jesus was the Christ by virtue of who He was irrespective of what Peter said about Him. In

other words, Peter did not determine who Jesus was, he simply recognized who Jesus was and is. This

does not render Peter's confession as unimportant, but puts it in proper perspective. Jesus, the Word of

God made flesh had primacy over Peter. Peter would be judged correct or incorrect by his recognition or

failure to recognize Christ.

If we carry this through to the written Word of God, the same logic follows. The history of canon

formation is marked by ongoing recognition of an authoritative Word of God to men. This has not been

without its struggles and debates (before and after the council). But the struggle and debate has been

about what to recognize as the Word of God. What has God sent to us to be received and submitted to?

What has primacy, the church or the Word of God? What is the dynamic that establishes the church? From

the first it was the Word made flesh calling out to men, and men recognized Him and followed. It was the

recognition of the Word that established the church.

The apostles then went around and preached the good news, the Word of God made flesh, and in

recognition of this Word, churches were formed in various places. The Word of God proclaimed preceded

and established the church. The spoken and written Word of God (1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, etc.)

established the faith and practice of the church through the apostles. When the Word was believed in a

particular place, a church was formed. This is the order we see from Christ and the apostles.

So the Word of God creates and establishes the church, even before a completed canon had been

recognized.

Even when the apostles were preaching and teaching, there was a need to exhort gathered believers to

read their words as the Word of God. Already there were authoritative texts to be circulated by which the

church was to be ordered and spiritually nourished.

The council was not the first place and time when an authoritative canon was recognized by the church.

This council was necessary because of the proliferation of pseudo- gospels and epistles. And this council

was not one in which people understood the church to establish a canon, but was one in which texts

which had established and guided the church were officially recognized for what they had been all along.

The council was the church recognizing the sacred Scripture, the Word of God written, that had

established and nourished her and had been her authority for faith and practice.

As a matter of historical fact, the canon, even before the council of Carthage, was called “Recognized

Books.” The following comes from Bishop Eusebius' ancient church history, ( he lived from 260-339

AD):

“It will be well at this point, to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of

course, put first the holy quartet of the gospels, followed by the book of Acts of the Apostles. The next

place in the list goes to Paul's epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called 1 John;

likewise 1 Peter. To these may be added, if it is thought proper, the Revelation of John, the arguments

about which I will set out when the time comes. These are classified as Recognized Books.”

(p.88)

It becomes clear, then, that this council should in no way be understood as a foundation for a “sacred

tradition” which in practice, holds primacy to “sacred Scripture.” The church did not create a canon, but

recognized the canon that had created and sustained her, just as Peter recognized Christ for who He was.

For this reason, evangelicals stand with the men of the ancient council, appealing to a canon of sacred

texts as the authoritative body of writings to which the church alone submits.

The issue of who determines the canon reveals a tragic circumventing of the relation God is to have with

His people, as a people who hear His Word and thereby know Him. You ask the question, “Who says the

Bible is God's Word?” You answer: the church says and apart from the church you would have no way of

knowing whether the Bible was the Word of God or the Boston Globe. This is tragic. It is like Peter

standing up feeling the need to give credibility to Jesus. As if Peter could add something that would make

Jesus more believable. The Word of God in the flesh needs no human agency for his credibility. The Word

of God written needs no human agency, for its credibility either. Man stands or falls in response to the

Word of revelation. The Word of revelation does not stand or fall by man's testimony. Your Catechism

teaches this unholy dependance of God's Word upon men:

“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise

arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so

connected and associated that one cannot stand without the others.”

So, in a nutshell, the Word of God cannot stand without the Magisterium, the teaching office of men. This

is the tragically wrong (and even blasphemous) move that leads to a hundreds other wrongs and

blasphemies. When the foundation is flawed the whole building becomes warped.

When Jesus told the parable of the sower, he presented a picture in which the Word of God proclaimed

encountered men. Men would be judged in response to that Word. It is critically wrong to suppose the no

one would know the Bible is God's written Word apart from the verification of men. (i.e. “It is the word of

God because we say so”). What happened to the Holy Spirit creating new life and confirming in the hearts

of men the credibility of Jesus? The church is the effect or fruit of the Holy Spirit giving life to the Word

of revelation in the hearts of men. You are in danger of putting the church in the place of God--of doing

the truly heinous thing of making the church an idolatrous institution in which it becomes the object of

faith rather than Christ. This I believe is accomplished by asserting the “infallibility of the Church as a

whole.” It is taught that,

“Christ sustains the infallibility of the Church by having endowed her pastors and official teachers with

the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. These 'shepherds' of the Church - that is, the

Pope and the bishops in communion with him - are called the Magisterium.”(Encyclopedia of Catholic

Doctrine, p.233)

From the Catechism:

“Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the

truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of

infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms: 'The Roman

Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility by virtue of his office...The infallibility

promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they

exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council.” (CCC 890-891)

The apostles obviously were not infallible, though their inspired Writings were. On this, it seems you

must agree. So how could the church, which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets be so?

In short, it is our belief that God is infallible, and the church is not God. This is the danger of the “implicit

faith” teaching of Catholicism. To have faith in what the church says, is to have implicit faith in Christ.

We could also say this means, faith in the church, rather than faith in Christ, because the church (“the

Pope and the bishops in communion with him”) now stands between Christ and His people. The people

are no longer encouraged to “hear Christ” apart from the teaching office of the church, simply because it

is considered impossible to do so.

“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of

the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” (Catechism p.35)

Yet the Scriptures testify for hearing God through His Word as the infallible knowledge needed for

salvation, and in so doing we become the church: “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for

teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly

equipped for every good work.” - The Apostle Paul (2 Timothy 3:16). The verses prior reveal that

Timothy had been brought up in the teaching of the “holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for

salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim.3:15) Who brought Timothy up in this knowledge? His

grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (see 2 Tim.1:5).

Note that being completely equipped to serve God is accomplished through understanding the Word of

God. This is what Paul was instructing Timothy to instruct the Church.

This direct connection for God's people to His written Word has been required from the Old Covenant

forward:

Deuteronomy 5:22, “These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole

assembly there on the mountain...”

Isaiah 66:2, “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

John 14:21, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.”

When Paul, an apostle on whom the church is built, was preaching to the Bereans, Luke reports in Acts

that the Bereans confirmed the truthfulness of Paul's preaching by going to the Old Covenant texts. “Now

the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonicans, for they received the message with

great joy and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).

According to your perspective, it is hard to see how the Bereans could be attributed for having noble

character. It seems your perspective is-- “this is true because we (the teaching office of the church) say

so” is the bedrock foundation of truth, while the non-apostolic, non-Magisterial Berean laity checked the

validity of an apostle's interpretation and preaching by their own reading of the sacred text! This is no

small point. According to you, their judgment in this matter, positive or negative, would have no validity

at all. However, this is evidence for a direct engagement with God through His Word as valid and

righteous and expected. This was evidence of the Bereans' faithfulness to God, not insolence.

The Apostolic assumption was that the local leadership and laity were capable to properly comprehend

the sacred Scripture. This is why the letters of the apostles were distributed the way they were. The

apostles did not write their theological opinions to be submitted to an apostolic council with Peter

presiding at the head of the table, and then their interpretation of these writings sent out to local churches

as Papal bulls or the decrees of a council. Given Roman Catholic views it seems this would be the

expected procedure. If this was the procedure, wouldn't this stand as irrefutable proof of your views?

Wouldn't that be a highlight of your lectures? However, the reality is, and as you well know, several of

these inspired writings were sent directly to local churches and it was assumed they were fully capable to

grasp their meaning. Note Paul's statement to the church in Corinth,

“For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand”(2 Cor.1:13).

The “we” here means the apostles, and the “you” refers to the church in Corinth. Letters like the one

written to Colosse were meant to be circulated and read in churches.

“After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you

in turn read the letter from Laodicea”(Col.4:16).

This reveals an apostolic assumption that the church would have an unmediated relationship to Holy

Scripture, and that the people of God, no doubt with the aid of local leadership would be able to

understand what was being written. The Scriptures are not esoteric and mysterious writings needing a

specialized and exalted order of interpreters. The evidence is to the contrary.

No doubt we live at an historical distance form the early church. We have to work harder to understand

things like historical and literary context in order to understand the sacred writings. But this is no

mysterious and esoteric exercise given for a spiritual few. These are common sense principles that come

into play in understanding any ancient writing. Today training is important, but not because the laity are

inherently unable to understand apart from a special caste of bishops, or a “supreme” order of men, but

because education provides to tools to help us grasp what is accessible to all people.

Ministers of the Gospel are to stand as conduits to the sacred Word for God's people. Not as infallible

interpreters, but as men who work hard (using the tools of biblical languages and education in biblical

history, etc.) to understand the Scriptures and then explain the meaning of the text to God's people.

However, the people have the responsibility to engage with the Word themselves and can even bring

correction to those ordained to serve them. It is possible, even for the theologically trained, to have a bias

that runs counter to the intent of the original authors. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to

communicate the original intent of the apostles, and not to displace it. This is because the Word itself

stands as the infallible witness and expression of God's will. As an example of this, Timothy had been

ordained by the apostles to be a minister of the Word for the church, yet Timothy had to:

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed

and who correctly handles to word of truth”(2 Timothy 2:15).

Timothy's value to the church before God was in how he interpreted “the word of truth.” Paul would also

instruct him not to “let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the

believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come devote yourself to the public

reading of the Scriptures, to preaching and to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:12,13) Timothy's credibility did not

rest upon his ordination, but on faithful living and teaching. Paul recognized that if he was to be of

service to the church, they must esteem him as a faithful minister. This implies that Timothy stood as one

accountable to the church.

It is important to note that this does not lead to the conclusion that everyone has equal ability to interpret

God's Word. Ministers of God should have a comprehension and an ability to expound the sacred text.

This is what the process of ordination is designed to promote, as well as candidacy for serving a local

church. It is not quite as chaotic a picture as you present. Neither is the unity of the Catholic communion

quite as unified as you present. Many Catholics could care less what your Magisterium decrees about

birth control. They will argue just as freely for their views as an evangelical will for his over and against

another evangelicals. How many Democrat Catholics take a stand against abortion? There will always be

prideful resistance to the will of God. You can point to it in the evangelical world and denounce our view

of direct engagement to the Word of God. But the one does not follow from the other, just as the existence

of abortion-supporting Catholics is no argument against the validity of an infallible Magisterium. That

type of argumentation may work for public consumption as a rhetorical device, but it is not coherent.

It seems as well that the prior discussion concerning Cyprian and the protest against Roman incursion into

the affairs of other churches shows that the early church has this conception of the role of ordained

ministry as servants of God's infallible Word. They were to stand as men faithful to the truth revealed in

the text over and against “custom” when custom perverts God's will revealed in his Word. How could

infallibility be attributed to the Roman bishop and his fellow bishops if widespread protest against their

interpretation was an historical reality? Cyprian himself pointed out that even Peter was willing to

change when shown he was out of step with Holy Scripture.

The notion of “infallibility” of the Magisterium in conjunction with the Roman bishop, in reality, puts you

in a difficult spot. How do you account for obvious discrepancies between The “infallible decrees” of the

Ecumenical Council of Trent and the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II? The shift of attitude toward

Protestants is nothing short of a radical turn of events. In effect, Protestants have gone from being

“cursed” (anathematized) by the decrees of Trent to blessed by the irenic and friendly affirmations of

Vatican II. Many welcome this as a positive change/transition/growth in understanding, but few seem to

understand, or have closed their eyes to how this undermines claims to “infallibility.” Men and women

who were grimly consigned to hell from 1563 to 1965 are now welcomed by smiling Catholic faces.

Note the following “unerring” decrees of the sole interpreters of God's holy will:

Concerning Baptism: Canon 3 of the Council of Trent- “If anyone saith, that in the Roman Church, which

is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of

baptism: let him be anathema (cursed).”

So here is the teaching of “the church.” May all who deny Catholic baptism as valid be cursed by God.

However, this what many Protestant denominations would even now say about Catholic baptism. Yet

Vatican II teaches:

Chapter 1 Section 15; “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being

baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do

not preserve the unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred

Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show sincere zeal.”

It must be pointed out, that it would be from taking sacred Scripture as “a norm and pattern of life” which

would lead many Protestants to reject Catholic baptism as valid. Does the curse of Trent still stand in light

of Vatican II? How does the “blessing” of Vatican II harmonize with “the curse” of Trent without

acknowledging a real change in dogmatic stance? And if this is a change in dogmatic stance, then how

can it be true that the church's teaching is where you unerringly find the truth of God? How many older

Roman Catholic priests who have “faithfully” taught Protestants they cannot be saved according to the

Church's teaching have felt this “growth” in understanding as what it truly is?

Much is made by you and others of the many different opinions within Protestantism. But you do not

acknowledge the many different opinions through the history of the Catholic church which are

substantively extremely significant for the spiritual life of God's people. What of the view during the time

of Wycliffe that the Word of God in “vulgar speech” (any non-Latin language) was a blasphemous idea

and that Latin was a sacred language? Catholics of today who read their Bibles in English would have

been brought up on charges of heresy by Catholics in England of yesterday upon the approval of the

Supreme Pontiff. As late as 1816 Pope Pius VII would denounce Bible Societies who sought to translate

the Bible into languages people could understand as “fiendish institutions for the undermining of the

foundation of religion.” Are these small things that have no bearing on the “unerring and sole ability” of

the Pope and his colleagues? How is this not a change of an “infallible” decree (that has to do with faith

and morals)? I hasten to add that it will be humbly stated that, “the church is not perfect and has made

mistakes just like all churches even Protestant ones.” But that is a protest that must not be made by a

Catholic, whose church claims “infallible interpretation” via papal decree and Ecumenical Council.

Unfortunately, “infallibility” is by definition perfection and leaves no room for human error. This is why

Protestants wisely and humbly leave this for God alone.

6. Forgiveness Confusion: Of all that I heard in these lectures, the teaching that there is no forgiveness

for mortal sins outside of oral confession to an ordained priest was the most shocking. I admit up front,

that just because I was alarmed by this, is no argument that it is not true. Surely, truth can be shocking.

But it is with this statement, and others connected to forgiveness, and how it is obtained that reveals a

deep divide. The confusion sets in, however, when I am told, in light of Vatican II, that I am actually a

Roman Catholic and accepted as a saved and forgiven member of Christ's body, even though I have never

confessed to an ordained priest, nor do I ever plan to do so. This is exacerbated, I presume, by the fact that

I have heard this teaching loud and clear and consciously reject it as evil. Am I still an invisible Catholic?

I reject it as evil because of the teaching of sacred Scripture. When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray

when they pray he taught them to say,

“Our Father (meaning God the Father) who is in heaven, hallowed

be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our

daily bread, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us....”

I anticipate you explaining that this is what Jesus taught his disciples, not future believers to pray. But if

you say this, why does the Catholic church teach its laity to pray the “ Our Fathers”? There is no reason to

believe that Jesus was not teaching his disciples, and all future believers to pray in this way- presumably,

this is why Catholics are instructed to do so. There are many times Jesus taught his disciples to do things

and to think in certain ways, and we take him to mean all those who would follow him as well as the

disciples in front of him. When we come to the epistles, it is clear we are to approach our Father in heaven with Christ as our

sacrificial mediator.

1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins....If anyone does sin, we

have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”

There is no mention in 1 John of confessing to a priest, so it is very reasonable to assume, John means

what Jesus meant. When we pray, we pray, “Our Father, who is in heaven...”

Hebrews 10:19-22, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the

blood of Christ, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we

have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance

of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience...”

The writer is writing to the church, referring to “brothers.” Note the special access we all have as a “royal

priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). According to Peter, all believers are now priests who enter the Most Holy

Place. Jesus now serves as the “great priest over the house of God” who, as we saw in 1 John “speaks to

the Father in our defense.” It is in this way we all are beckoned to “draw near to God.” There is no human

mediator necessary in the new covenant. Jesus is the “great priest” and we are all priests invited to enter

into God's Holy Presence.

I could cite many other texts, but this will have to suffice for now. There is no question we are exhorted to

confess sins to one another as well. For example James 5:16, “Therefore confess your sins to one another

and pray for each other so that you may be healed.”

But James is far from advocating a formal human and exclusive priesthood that becomes a necessary

means by which we receive forgiveness from the Father. Rather, sacred Scripture shows the new covenant

to be one in which all believers are a part of the “royal priesthood”as a fulfillment of the Levitical

priesthood of the old covenant:

Isaiah 61:6, “And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God.”

Revelation 1:6, “...and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father- to him be

glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”

Revelation 20:6, “...they will be priests of God and of Christ and reign with him for a thousand years.”

Nowhere in the pastoral epistles do we have any instructions about instituting a special priestly class by

which forgiveness is obtained. Isn't this a glaring absence given the importance placed on just such a

ministry by the Roman Catholic church? Can this be explained by appeal to “sacred tradition”, and if so,

can't any deviation from sacred Scripture be justified? This seems to be the case.

To conclude, the consistent strand that runs through, the above analysis, is that the institutional church

becomes the object of faith, rather than God who is known through His Word. This expresses itself most

fundamentally through the teaching arm of the church (the Magisterium) viewing itself as the sole

unerring interpreter of God's Word. This logically leads to a dependence on Catechisms and Councils

which is the unerring teaching of the church. In this regard, “the church teaching” effectively displaces

the role God's Word is to play for the benefit of God's people. It cannot be denied that this has been the

evidence of history. Indifference to translations of the Bible into the common language which was

initiated by Protestants has only reluctantly embraced by pragmatic response of the Catholic church. It is

a matter of historical fact that the Bible had not been translated into English until Wycliff, and had not

been translated into German until Luther while Catholicism had previously held sway in these countries

for hundreds of years. Bible study, as an activity of the laity, is a recent development in Catholic history.

Even Catholics today remember a time when opening the Bible in a home without a priest present was

unthinkable. Given Catholic views of authority and the remote role the Scriptures are to play in the

church, this makes sense.

Connected with this, the church comes between God and His people in regard to reconciliation. To teach

that forgiveness of sins (mortal or not) cannot be found apart from the ministrations of the Roman

Catholic church when God's Word teaches the contrary is clearly evidence of this.

These two points reveal that “the Church” and its so-called and self-titled “Supreme” ministrations

actually stand in the very place that God our Father through Jesus Christ has appointed for Himself and

Himself alone. Since the Catholic institution takes on the role and sole right of God, it in effect becomes

by implication a surrogate deity, a golden calf in the supposed absence of Christ. This, while claiming

divine right to do so. Jesus has returned to His Father on the Mountain of God, and some have risen up

and claimed divine right to set up a new order of worship in his absence. It is a familiar theme.

(As an important caveat to say, my intention is not to be offensive, but candid regarding an evaluation of

the spiritual condition of Catholicism based on this analysis. Candidness is kindness when it comes to our

relation with a holy God. Also, it is important to note, because I believe the Catholic church to be

idolatrous, does not mean every person within the Catholic communion is an idolater. It is to say the

Catholic system is idolatrous in that the church displaces God in her formal dogma, but there are

undoubtedly men and women within that communion who follow Christ faithfully in spite of Catholic

dogma. In this case, ignorance may be bliss!)

We live in an irenic and soft age in which it is deemed bigoted and arrogant to criticize another's religious

convictions. However, as we know, biblical Christianity is serious and candid, because truth is life. I

respect your candor as a Catholic, but to this point I cannot respect your Catholicism. Again, this does not

mean there aren't true believers within the Catholic church. It does mean, that those who have a true and

saving faith, do so in spite of their church's teachings and tolerances. My hope is that this response to your

lectures will bear good fruit, as we, by God's grace continue this important discussion. I look forward to

being corrected concerning any misconceptions I may have.

Sincerely,

Mark Skillin

Teaching Elder- Christ Covenant Church