This month of September we celebrate three Marian Feasts: the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (8th), Our Lady of Sorrows (15th), and Our Lady Undoer of Knots (unofficially, 28th), so it seems fitting to write to new Catholic converts about devotion to Mary.

Two Prefacing Comments:

1. This article is not so much theological as it is devotional. I’ll explain those differences below.

2. I am a new Catholic, confirmed just over two years ago. I grew up a lifelong evangelical protestant, had a seven year runaway prodigal son journey, and returned, shortly thereafter becoming a Presbyterian minister. Like many people coming into the Catholic Church (or perhaps about to begin OCIA at your parish), Mary was the most confusing and challenging hurdle to get over. I say this upfront because lifelong Catholics have a different perspective about Marian devotion. I am not St. Louis de Monfort and won’t pretend to be. I am writing to new Catholics as a new Catholic. I’m not on the peak of the mountain but climbing up with you.

Dogmas and Devotions

It’s interesting looking back at my protestant years, where, besides the annual Nativity scene we’d set up around our house at Advent, Mary was no where to be seen. There was an unwritten rule that “we Protestants don’t speak of her.” Most non-catholic communities are simply unsure what to do with her. Even when preaching sermon series on Luke’s Gospel, my references about Mary would be short and more about what I don’t believe than what I do. There was nothing to “believe” about herself, and therefore no devotion to have.

As a lover of the Bible, and a student of it, once I got introduced to Marian theology, it didn’t take long to be in awe of her presence all throughout the Scriptures. Formerly, as a Protestant pastor my biblical eyes were not willing to see her. You must search to find, and there was no reason for me to search. But this changed with books by Dr. Hahn and Dr. Pitre (Hail, Holy Queen & Jewish Roots of Mary) who helped connect Old Testament passages, prophecies and roles, to her life written of in the New Testament.

I quickly learned that the four Marian dogmas are not only biblical but also found in the Faith of the early Church. Once I became open to being Catholic, they were easy to accept.

But the devotional side to Mary was, and is, different.

Dogmas and biblical truths can be easy to accept cognitively, but what good is a truth if it remains on the periphery of our lives? Truths are given to us precisely to reshape and redeem our desires, our will, our loves, and ultimately our lives. In short, Marian dogmas naturally ought to flow into devotions. You can’t nod your head in agreement with the four Marian dogmas and see the biblical typology pointing to her from the Old to the New, and still refuse to venerate her and ask for, and receive, her intercession and love.

This is a harder step and it takes time. I have no shame in saying that my Marian devotional life is in the baby steps phase, and she is okay with that. I have a lot of unlearning to do, and trust is being built.

A Season of Unlearning

Even after I came to agree with the Marian dogmas intellectually, it still took time for me to accept that Mary is not an unnecessary distraction from Jesus. “Why go to Mary when you can go straight to Jesus?” I believe this is the internal question many catechumens and converts wrestle with.

The response, “well, Mary brings Jesus to us” is true, but doesn’t cut it. Skeptics and/or new converts can struggle with that answer because it sounds like you’re saying, “Jesus can’t come to you except through Mary.” There is a combative mentality, where both things can’t be true. It’s either straight to Jesus or no Jesus at all.

But both things can be true: we can “go straight to Jesus” and ask for Mary’s help.

Converts and seekers: I want to propose that Marian devotion is never combative. She is addition without subtraction.

There was a popular book in my presbyterian young adult years called “Jesus + Nothing = Everything.” I don’t recommend it. But this sentiment has formed a false notion within me - let’s call it a knot - that Our Lady is Undoing. This is my season of unlearning. So, what is true? The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit + All of His Gifts: Mary and all the Angels and Saints + The Church and Her Clergy and Religious + all our lay brothers and sisters = Everything.

What Mary Adds

By God’s design, Mary brings gifts we all need, and devotion to Her opens our hearts to receive them.

First of all, she relates with us in the unexpected. She lived with joy in the unexpected, responding in her young teenage years to the invitation of redemption. God intended to overshadow her and bring about a miraculous birth by the Holy Spirit, and her heart burst forth with joy (Luke 1:46-55). She desires us to live with this joy. She helps us respond to the blessings and invitations in our life with joy. Furthermore, she helps us hear the words of God, and the circumstances He’s given to us, with expectancy: “God is going to do something great here!” Devotion to Mary tunes your heart to the unexpected and fills it with joyful expectancy.

And it doesn’t end there…

I love this truth: John the Baptist is the first responder of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He leaps for joy in the womb of his mother, thanks to our intercessor, Mary. But there’s more to the story… because this story is also about Elizabeth and the lifelong heartache of a barren womb. This is a pain many women and husbands tragically experience today. A desire for something good yet nothing comes. Doubts and despair creep into our hearts and minds. And in comes Mary… and consider this… at the time of her visitation, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. The apostles’ Pentecost (John 20) and the people’s Pentecost (Acts 2) hadn’t yet happened, yet here, upon hearing the greeting of Mary, the Holy Spirit comes to fill Elizabeth.

What are the first words of the Holy-Spirit-filled woman? “Blessed are you among women… for you believed there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to [you] from the Lord.” (Luke 1:39-45)

Hope is a supernatural virtue. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and Mary’s greeting brings this about. Do you want more supernatural hope that comes by the Holy Spirit? Then hear the greeting of Mary, she comes with power, because she comes with her Son.

Lastly, she not only teaches us how to rejoice with Christ, she also teaches us how to suffer with Him.

September 15th is the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. Simeon foretold her pain when Jesus was only forty days old: “and a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35). Mary would know unimaginable joy, but she would also know profound sorrow. She watched her Son be rejected, mocked, scourged, and crucified. No mother should ever have to bury her child.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons so many people discover a deep love for Mary. She understands suffering from the inside. She knows what it is to trust God when His plan doesn’t make sense. She knows unanswered questions, tears, waiting, and heartbreak. When we bring our own wounds to her, she doesn’t dismiss them or rush us past them. She simply walks with us to Jesus.

Six months into my Catholic life I spent a few days at Our Lady of Grace Retreat Center (Stillwater). My Spiritual Director gave me a night in her office to spend speaking to Mary with the use of her beautiful statue of Mary. The next morning, before I said a word about how it went, she told me she was praying to Mary last night for me, asking Mary to guide my time and to Mother me, and she was told, “I’ll take him by the hand.”

Tears started rolling down my face.

To my disbelief, I said, “well, you’re never going to believe this, but last night as I was talking to her, I felt a strong urge to hold the hand of the statue. So there I sat, pouring my heart out, holding her hand.” During my own season of wandering—my own season of a pierced heart—Mary walked with me in a new way. She didn’t steal my heart from Jesus but enlarged it.

This is my hope for you… that dogmas become devotions. That you patiently endure your own season of unlearning and gradually entrust your heart to your Mother. That you welcome her into your life—in moments of joy, sorrow, uncertainty, and hope. And my hope is that, one day, you too will take her by the hand.

As a Presbyterian pastor we said this same prayer at the beginning of the Lord’s Supper liturgy. That’s because this prayer goes all the way back to the 3rd century - an ancient liturgy of both east and west. “It is truly right and just…”

So, what exactly does that mean?

St. Thomas Aquinas answers this for us:

Justice is “a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will.”

So, what is God due? He is owed - hence why it is our duty - perfect worship. We are to “give Him thanks” with our whole being.

The problem of course is that we cannot give God a gift proportionate to what He is owed. We do not “give Him thanks” as He deserves to be given thanks.

So what is going on in this liturgy? How is justice satisfied?

Jesus Christ gives Himself to God in perfect obedience. This happened on Calvary, where Jesus offered His whole self to God: “He came to do the will of Him who sent Him.” (Jn. 6:38) In the Mass, the Sacrifice of Calvary is offered to the Father on the altar. It’s not offered again and again, but what was once and eternally offered, is represented again and again.

The Baltimore Catechism says it this way:

“The Mass is the Sacrifice of the New Law in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

The Catholic Catechism states it this way:

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit… The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” (1366-67)

But it doesn’t end there… we are incorporated into that sacrificial gift of thanks, by faith. We participate in Christ’s perfect thanksgiving offering. This is what Eucharist means, after all: an offering of thanks.

As a Presbyterian I don’t know what I would have said. The Lord’s Supper wasn’t anything offered to the Father, but solely something we came forward to receive. A meal we shared with Christ and one another. Theologically I would have known, “Christ’s work on Calvary is finished. Now we give imperfect thanksgiving throughout our lives. God accepts our imperfect thanksgiving because of Christ. His perfect offering 2,000 years ago, was credited to me at my moment of saving faith.” Whereas what this liturgy historically teaches, and what the Church has always taught, is Christ’s perfect self-offering is represented on the altar and He incorporates us into Himself. The Priest offers the Father Christ’s own perfect worship, and we are “in Christ.”

It is truly right and just.

Check out an old article I wrote for more info about this.

Saint Kateri is one of dozens of female Virgins the church celebrates through the liturgical year. So, today I answer: why is virginity such a big deal?

Here’s the way I think of it… virginity is one of the places where Catholicism preserves a distinctly biblical teaching that Protestant traditions have lost. In other words, where are all of the Baptist or Presbyterian consecrated celibates and virgins? Surprisingly, virginity exposes a fault within the “Sola Scriptura” framework, because Scripture consistently presents both marriage and consecrated virginity as holy vocations, and therefore a Biblical Church must promote and structure vocations for both.

So what’s the big deal about it? Simply put, virginity possesses a unique eschatological significance because it anticipates - and gives evangelical witness to - the life of heaven. Jesus says we will not be married in heaven (Mt. 22:30), so virgins live in that reality on earth for our eyes of heavenly faith to see.

Saint Cyprian says this about Virgins, “They have dedicated themselves to Christ, and, renouncing the pleasures of the flesh, have consecrated themselves body and soul to God, in order to finish a task that is destined to win a great prize; they should not strive to adorn themselves or give pleasure to anyone but the Lord, from whom they hope to receive the reward for their chastity.”

…

Virginity is presented in the Old Testament as a gift and a vocation. The prophet Isaiah prophecies a hopeful future about the “new” Eunuchs. Eunuch’s were castrated slaves used for different purposes by kings of old. Isaiah says,

Let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. (Is 56:3–5)

He is speaking of a new covenant where those who renounce family life for God receive “a name better than sons and daughters.” These are virgins and celibates.

This Isaiah prophecy makes sense of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew’s Gospel (v.12), ^“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus is not saying that some men castrate themselves. He would never teach us to destroy something God has created good (namely, our genitals), which is one reason the Catholic Church is against vasectomies. Instead, Jesus is saying there are some who go without sexual intercourse for the Kingdom of Heaven.

Here, Jesus is teaching that celibacy is a vocation that God equips some men and women for.

This is exactly what Paul means when he says in 1 Cor. 7 that he wishes all men become like he is (a virgin), because "He who marries his betrothed does well; yet he who refrains from marriage will do better." (v.38)

The Church understands this as Christian, consecrated virginity.

These men (priests, monks, bishops) and women (virgins, religious, nuns) are icons of the Church as a whole, which is "a pure virgin to Christ." (2 Cor. 11:2)

St. Jerome (most commonly attributed to him) famously summarized the Catholic position:

“We do not condemn marriage; we merely prefer virginity.”

This is exactly Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 7. Marriage is good, but virginity for the Kingdom is a higher calling because it signifies total consecration to Christ and foreshadows the life of the resurrection.

This is why Catholic tradition developed monasticism, religious life, and priestly celibacy. These vocations are not a denigration of marriage; they are a lived expression of the biblical conviction that some are called to surrender even the great good of marriage in order to give witness, here and now, to the coming Kingdom of Heaven where God will be “all in all.”

Just as Jeremiah was called to celibacy (Jer. 16:1-2), so too was Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Paul, and Sts. Agnes, Lucy, Agatha, Cecilia, Catherine, and Kateri Tekakwitha.

This makes sense of a confusing passage. In 1 Timothy 5 female celibacy is a consecrated calling. Timothy was instructed to assign roles at the different church’s he was given authority to begin: bishops, elders, deacons (outlined in ch. 3) and consecrated women who will vow to serve the church in celibacy, prayer and works of mercy (outlined in ch. 5).

A strangely beautiful witness to the Catholic Church is this: we have, and extend a higher calling to self-made-eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. We honor those who have gone before us and wedded themselves to a celibate, spiritual marriage with Christ - bringing eternal reality to bear on earth today.

Offering it up is a response to the human condition and experience of suffering. Suffering comes at us all, every day. Certainly bigger trials happen, such as life-changing accidents, diagnosis or death, but everyday our life is full of “lower-case-s” sufferings:

1. Relational conflict with family, friends or co-workers

2. Injustices experienced and/or things not going our way

3. Physical pain endured

4. House damages

5. Joblessness or feeling stuck in a job you hate

6. Cancelled plans or daily inconveniences

And the list could go on.

When we experience these painful things, a wave of emotion arises. The evil one entices us towards uncontrolled anger, discouragement, despair, hatred, envy, covetousness, etc. The parable of the sower teaches us that often times the sufferings faced in life lead people to greater selfishness, doubts, and eventually a turning away from God.

What is the Christian weapon against this?

We are to “offer it up.”

Consider St. Paul’s instruction: “by the mercies of God, present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” (Rom. 12:1)

The Supreme Sacrifice of Christ, our High Priest and Victim, presented His Body to God the Father, holy and accepted, as His spiritual gift. He did this for our redemption.

His pain was physical. His body was pierced. His flesh torn apart. His face dripped blood. His hands and feet nailed. His body and His soul, offered to God.

So the question is, “can we only offer soul-level petitions to God? Or can we offer things to God, with our bodies?”

….

A few months ago our friends were in the hospital with their one-year baby suffering from RSV. Our priest came to visit them and then went to another room in the same hospital to visit an elderly man dying of cancer. Our priest told that man about the baby he had just visited. The Catholic man (dying of cancer) responded, “tell them I am offering all of my suffering to God for the healing of their child.”

This is redemptive suffering. This is “offering it up.”

Paul says in Colossians 1:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

What is lacking in Christ’s afflictions?

Our participation in it.

In some mysterious way, we are co-laboring with Christ as his workmen (Eph. 2:8-10), building up His Kingdom. Part of our labor is the proper use of our suffering. God has chosen to distribute (for lack of better wording) the merits of His redemption, through the embodied sacrifices of Christ’s members.

Just as Christ offered the suffering of His body as a pleasing and acceptable sacrifice to God - for our redemption - we can do the same thing. In other words, God doesn’t just accept your prayers (soul-level stuff) for someone else or for your own spiritual growth and personal life, but your endurance through trials, your acceptance and offering of said trials in faith, can merit good for you or someone else.

…

For the Protestant reader, this isn’t as obscure as you might think. Consider this:

• My mom used to fast every Friday for my salvation. She suffered in her body for my good.

• We all tithe every month, withholding from additional expenses or saving, for the good of other people.

• We bring people food who are suffering or have a newborn, which costs money and time and energy.

The Church teaches all suffering, the big and little stuff, can be our spiritual, embodied, act of worship.

…..

Making a bit more sense of it…

This is central in our Eucharistic theology. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary is one and the same sacrifice of the Mass. We then come and receive Him, which is our participation in His sacrifice. We are then sent out as His Eucharistic body: sacrificing our body and soul for the good of our neighbor.

The catechism states (p. 618)

“The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the ‘one mediator between God and men.’ But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, ‘the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery’ is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to ‘take up [their] cross and follow [him],’ for ‘Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.’ In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.”

Paul writes the Church in Corinth thanking God for his afflictions… he doesn’t want them to worry about him or work to change his circumstances. He says,

^“For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. ⁶ If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. ⁷ Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.” (2 Cor. 1:5–7)

He says of his sufferings,

¹⁵ For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, ¹⁶ to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?” (1:15-16)

He goes on…

For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. ¹² So death is at work in us, but life in you.” (4:11–12)

He concludes…

¹⁶ So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. ¹⁷ For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, ¹⁸ as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (4:16–18)

His bodily suffering, offered in faith as a gift to God, is for their salvation, and his own.

…

So, today, when you suffer: offer it up. Give it to God for your salvation and the good of someone you love. This is your spiritual act of worship.

…

After Sunday’s reading I felt compelled to write a devotional of sorts but then pushed it off. I had lunch, got tired, and moved on with my day. Then today’s Gospel reading said the same thing. So I guess I should make a quick reflection.

What is the one thing Christians do that no one else does?

Christians love their enemies.

In a world where we destroy our enemies, kill our enemies, speak poorly of our enemies, avoid our enemies, demean our enemies, judge our enemies, envy our enemies, humiliate our enemies, gossip about our enemies, hold grudges and maintain resentment about our enemies, withhold forgiveness to our enemies, overpower our enemies, and hate our enemies, Jesus tells us to love our enemies.

Let’s play by two basic definitions:

1. Love = to desire and will the good of another

2. Enemy = someone you don’t have great feelings for (meaning, it can be as small as a spouse you’re in a fight with or a coworker who is unjust, or as big as a political tribe you despise, or person who’s done you wrong)

Sunday’s New Testament reading came from Romans 5:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷ For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— ⁸ but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹ Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. ¹⁰ For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. ¹¹ More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Today’s Gospel reading came from Matthew 5:

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The logic seems thus:

1. The world stands as enemies of God. We are born into this because of Original Sin.

2. Christ came to the world to save the world. He came to die for His enemies. Saint Paul shows us that you and I would die for our children, we might even die for a good friend, but we certainly wouldn’t take a bullet for an enemy. Christ shows His far surpassing love for us, that while we were His enemies, He died for us.

3. Through His death and reconciliation Christ reconciles us to God and then gives us a ministry task: reconciliation. He entrusts us with this and empowers us in this by His grace. We grow in our own Christ-likeness by loving our enemies, and we play a role in the change of our enemies through our Christ-like love.

As the world around us tells us to despise our enemies, Christ says to love them, bless them, pray for them, and maybe even invite them into our lives. What good is it to love those who love you back? Anyone can do that (so says Jesus).

The world will know we are Christians by our love. And in our love, we become perfect. We become whole. We become healed. We become like God.

Heaven will be full of your enemies. You must be perfect to love them. God is perfecting us now, preparing us for that day, if we let Him.

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” - Ps. 14:1

We live in a time and culture where belief in God - and surrender to His will - is seen as unintelligible and foolish. But the opposite is true. As Peter Kreeft says, “The knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all… the vast majority of humans who ever lived have believed in some God. Children have to be educated out of theism and into atheism, not visa versa.”

Over the past two articles I articulated how we come to believe in God: because He has revealed Himself to us. He reveals Himself to us in creation, in our human persons, in Scripture, and in the Tradition of the Church. Our belief in Him doesn’t make Him true and real, but because He is true and real, we believe. The Church doesn’t reveal what God is like, but God reveals through (in part) the Church, what He is like.

So now the question becomes WHAT has He revealed about Himself? That’s where the Catechism begins and what this article is about.

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth… and in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made…and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceed from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified…”

God is One

Undoubtedly, Jesus, a righteous Jewish man and rabbi, prayed the “Shema” every single day: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”(Deut. 6:4–5) This was and is fundamental to the Jewish faith, as it is the Christian faith.

We confess that it is only by turning to the One Lord our God that all men can be saved: “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other… ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ (Is 45:22–23)

1 ) The Christian God is One in nature, essence, and substance, meaning God is not divided into parts, nor modes. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit aren’t all 1/3 God. And God doesn’t at times act as the Father (Old Covenant), then as the Son (New Covenant), then as the Spirit (Church age). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons who share the one nature, essence and substance.

2 ) God is the Creator of all created things, and He created all things out of nothing. He is the only Uncaused Cause, often analogously depicted as a locomotive with rail cars being pulled. There must be a first engine car pulling all cars.

3 ) God is not simply the greatest being among many beings. He is the source of all being. Everything that exists receives its existence from Him. This is why we say, God is Goodness, God is Truth, Beauty, Love, and Justice.

These are not traits that stand above God but rather realities that find their source, fullness and perfection in Him. When you and I arrive at truth, or goodness or beauty, we are actually participating in a small part of the infinite perfection that is God. When we love - sacrificially seeking the good of another - we are participating in God. When we seek love, we are really seeking God.

God is not one good thing among many good things. This is what our pluralistic society disciples us into believing. Rather He is the source of all goodness.

4 ) God is also the Necessary Being. St. Thomas Aquinas made this point through what is often called the “Contingency Argument.”

Everything and everyone we know is contingent on something or someone else. I would not exist if not for my parents. My parents would not exist if not for their parents. We all depend on food, water, air, the sun, and countless other things.

The same is true of everything around us. Trees depend on soil, water, and sunlight. Animals depend on plants and other animals. Nothing in creation stands on its own.

But if everything depends on something else then nothing would exist without a Necessary Being.

You can’t have an endless chain of things receiving existence from something before them. At some point there must be something that does not receive its existence from another.

There must be a Necessary Being and that Necessary Being is God.

God is not dependent on anything. He was not created. He does not receive life from another source. He simply is. This is why God reveals Himself to Moses as “I AM.”

God lacks nothing. He is infinite, perfect, and complete.

All other things—angels, demons, spiritual powers, human beings, matter, energy, and every created thing—exist because God gives them existence. Everything comes from Him and depends on Him.

If everything was contingent on something else, then you’d be stuck in a perpetual game of “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” The true answer: What came first? God. God, created the chicken with a specific nature that has the capacity to lay eggs.

So, do we worship the same God that Muslims and Jews worship?

Yes, we do.

There is only one God.

The God Christians worship is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Uncreated Creator and the Necessary Being. Muslims and Jews are also attempting to worship that same one God.

The differences arise when we ask who God is, what He is like, how He has revealed Himself, and what He desires from us.

If three people see a man walking down the street, and one says, “Hey, Joe!” another says, “Hey, Bob!” and another says, “Hey, George!” only one of them has called him by his proper name. But they are all attempting to identify the same person.

Likewise, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are not speaking about three different gods. They are speaking about the one God. The disagreement is over who He is and how He has revealed Himself.

Christians believe God has revealed Himself most fully in Jesus Christ. It is there that we learn not only that God is One, but that the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And that brings us to our next question: If there is only one God, why do Christians speak of three Persons?

That’s for the next article.

Sadly, thousands of people buy into it.

Here is the video:

This past Sunday we celebrated the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and our reading was John 6. So it’s fitting to respond to RZ.

Here is his argument:

1. In John 6, Jesus teaches everyone who eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life.

2. Many people who are not Catholic or not believers (in general) receive the Eucharist.

3. Not all of those ^ people have eternal life.

4. Therefore John 6 doesn’t teach what Catholics say it teaches.

5. (then he jumps way ahead) Therefore transubstantiation is wrong.

6. Therefore the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches a false dogma.

7. Therefore The Catholic Church is false.

A Brief Response

He is right that John 6 plays a pivotal role in Catholic Eucharistic theology. We take Jesus at His words that eating his flesh and blood is our participation in eternal life. Not to be rude, but if I’m forced to side with Redeemed Zoomer or St. Thomas Aquinas, I think that’s an easy choice.

Let’s me give a three-fold response to bring deeper clarity on the matter:

1. What is eternal life?

When an evangelical hears “eternal life” their mind quickly goes to heaven. So this passage seems simple enough: if we eat of his flesh and drink his blood, we go to heaven. RZ’s argument then follows suit: many people eat and drink that don’t go to heaven, therefore this is false.

But consider two better ways of understanding “eternal life.”

1 ) In Jewish worship, Israel was restricted from consuming the blood of the sacrificed animal: “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.” (Lev. 17:10–12)

Humans are higher than animals. We are like animals in that we have bodies, but we are like the angels in that we are spiritual beings. We are ensouled bodies. So humans should not consume the blood of an animal, they are lower than us - that life is put forth as an atonement for sins. We read: The life of the animal is in the blood.

Enter Jesus.

Jesus is like us in that He is an embodied soul. He took on human flesh and took on a human nature at a specific point in history. But Jesus is also God, having Divine Nature. So when we are instructed to drink of his blood (Jesus’ Upper Room / Last Supper instruction to drink the blood of the covenant for the forgiveness of sins) we are now consuming Divine life, participating in something higher, not lower (like the animals).

So when Jesus says when we eat his flesh and his blood we have eternal life, it is because Jesus is Divine and therefore Eternal. We consume His Eternal Life. We become partakers of His Divine life. We share in His Eternal life.

2 ) Second, we must understand “eternal life” does not equate to “going to heaven.” Jesus says in John 17:3 that "eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son whom He has sent.” Through the sacraments we are incorporated into the Body of Christ. We then become participants in the Divine, Trinitarian love, which is our eternal life. Eternal life isn’t a ticket into heaven, but incorporation into God’s life.

2. What is Transubstantiation?

A Catholic is not required to become an expert in Aristotle’s metaphysics. What is required is the assent of faith to the reality that:

• Christ becomes truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist.

• The bread and wine cease to be bread and wine in their substance.

• The appearances of bread and wine remain.

St. Thomas Aquinas articulated this as “transubstantiation” because the Holy Spirit miraculously changes the substance at the prayer of consecration, on the altar. Consider this idea… when we become “regenerated” or “saved” does something within us change? On the outside do we appear the same?

Yes and yes.

Our outer appearance remains but inside the Holy Spirit changes our soul. This mystery is most clearly seen during baptism, or perhaps if you’re a Southern Baptist, you think it happens at someone’s profession of faith or a moment of praying a prayer. Either way, the individual looks on the outside just as he/she did, but we all believe something has substantially changed within.

This gets us close to the acceptance of transubstantiation. A mysterious, spiritual, invisible change happens on the altar, though things look the same.

It’s also worth pointing out… We don’t only believe in this dogma because of John 6, but this doctrine comes from Jesus’ Last Supper when he says, “this is my body…. this is my blood.” It also is built on passages such as 1 Cor. 10 & 11.

3. The Role of Faith

RZ has issue with a person receiving the sacrament without faith. He says his Presbyterian “Real Presence” view requires faith for the consumption of Christ. We are actually more alike here than he knows. I wrote about that recently, which you can read HERE.

There are 4 scenarios to consider:

1. A non-Christian or a non-Catholic (or even a Catholic) coming forward and receiving the Eucharist without knowing what they are doing.

2. A non-Christian or a non-Catholic (or even a Catholic) coming forward and receiving the Eucharist knowing what it is but not caring. IOW, with a dismissive attitude. For the Catholic, a person who knows they are in mortal sin and comes forward anyways, knowing the Church teaches against this.

3. A Catholic coming forward, going through the motions.

4. A Catholic coming forward with faith.

In all four scenarios, the Eucharist is really, substantially Christ. The “value” isn’t contingent on the faith of the individual. Frankly, RZ is unaware of his own Westminster Standards because Presbyterians are similar to us. A Presbyterian couldn't just get bread and wine at their house and have friends over, all of whom hold a Spiritual Presence view, and then consume Christ. No - the Westminster teaches it must be administered by an ordained clergy. But this is where the Westminster becomes inconsistent. Because it teaches the consumption of Christ is dependent on our faith. In other words, we make the sacrament what it becomes. In some mysterious way, if you come forward without faith, the sacrament no longer possesses Jesus’ spiritual presence.

It’s hard to differentiate how that isn’t just a “symbolic-only” view of the sacrament, but I digress.

For the Catholic, the Eucharist is Christ no matter how someone comes forward.

In scenario #1, the person consumes the eternal/divine life of Christ, but it takes no hold on the individual. There is no grace, because reception requires intention of one’s will.

In scenarios #2 and #3 we would hold to Paul’s verdict in 1 Cor. 11, that this is serious business and you may have just consumed judgment on yourself. You ought not take the Lord lightly.

In scenario #4, the person has received the consecrated species and the grace of God.

Closing Thought

I wrote more about this over a year ago. You can find that article HERE.

I ended that article the same way I’ll end this article. RZ has 1,500 years of Church history to argue against when he fights this fight:

Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D. said, “Take note of those who hold heretical opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

Justin Martyr in his First Apology (2nd century) said, “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Irenaeus in Against Heresies (2nd century) says, “When therefore the mingled cup and the bread that has been made, receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ; from which the substance of our flesh is increased and supported.”

Or take Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the 4th century who instructed the early church saying, “In the Old Covenant there were loaves of proposition, but they, being of the Old Covenant, have come to an end. In the New Covenant there is a heavenly bread and a cup of salvation that sanctify soul and body. For, as the bread exists for the body, so the Word is in harmony with the soul. Therefore, do not consider them as bare bread and wine; for, according to the declaration of the Master, they are Body and Blood. If even the senses suggest this to you (that they are bare bread and wine) let faith reassure you. Do not judge the reality by the taste, but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Ambrose of Milan (4th century) teaches, “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’...Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.”

Saint Augustine in a sermon (5th century) said, “That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

Did the doctrine of the Eucharist develop over the years? Yes it did. Just as all doctrines do. When new questions get asked and new ideas are discovered they go back to the drawing board to make our understanding more precise. Transubstantiation is the fancy word as developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century but the foundational claims remain the same.

The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch. The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit. By the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.”^{(CCC 1324-1326)}

In the Vigil Mass of Pentecost we read Genesis 11 - the great story of division. In the East, the peoples want to make a name for themselves, so they build a tower to the heavens, only to be dispersed and scattered. God gives them different languages and makes them confused. Where there is sin and vain glory, there is division and hostility.

We then read in Sunday’s reading, the “Pentecost story” where fire from heaven comes down, and Galilean believers speak in foreign tongues, clearly communicating the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and “the mighty acts of God" to all peoples.

This simple framework for the work of the Spirit will unlock the Scriptures for you, but more importantly help you see the Spirit’s work in your own life, and in the life of the Church.

The Scriptures begin with peace: the unity of all things. We then read of sin: the division of all things. We then read of Christ: who makes peace by his blood, breaking down walls of hostility. We then read of His Spirit: who helps us all to confess One Lord. Finally, we hear of his final redemption: where every tribe, tongue and nation will confess and worship the Lamb that was slain.

This is the work of the Spirit. He is the Unifying Principle. He is the Love shared between the Father (Lover) and the Son (Beloved). He brings people into the Body of Christ, that we might be one with Him. And in doing so, we are united to the Love of the Father, crying “Abba, Father.” Lastly, He unites us to one another, working to accomplish the prayer of Jesus (John 17:21-23), that we may be one.

Consider these words from St. Paul:

In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” - Ephesians 2:22

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” - 1 Corinthians 12:12–13

“Be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call.” - Ephesians 4:3–4

“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” - Philippians 2:1–2

I could keep going, but I think we see the point.

So what is the takeaway?

With this framework in mind we can easily see what God is calling us in to, and what evil truly is. Let me give practical examples of what this looks like in our personal life:

1. Confession and Forgiveness: this is a work of the Spirit because it brings what has been divided, back together. When we have wronged someone, we participate with the Spirit and say sorry. Hostility and division is the work of evil.

2. Justice and Mercy: when we do our work with justice and mercy, we give to others what they deserve, and often times what they don’t deserve. We unite them to hope. When we do justice and mercy, we are uniting what’s been broken.

3. Sexual Wholeness: our body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit, so what we do with our body must be unifying. When we use someone else, that distorts the good. When we abuse someone for personal gain, that’s evil. When we get divorced, this is anti-Spirit. When we shun, are harsh, bitter, or reject the other, that’s participation in evil, because it’s bringing division. When we give of ourselves in the confines of a covenantal marriage for the good of the other and with openness to new life, that’s unity. That’s an icon of the Trinity, as well as an icon to the Groom (Jesus), Bride (Church), and Gift (Spirit).

4. Watching our speech: our tongues have the power to build up or tear down (Prov. 12:18, 18:21, etc). We can bring unity and peace, or division and disorder. We can extend grace, or commit evil. We are to build up the body, which is our participation in the Spirit. Or we can work with the evil one, teaching what is false and building up division.

The Holy Spirit’s work can often be hard to discern. There are many ways of seeing His work in our lives, and this is one of those ways. As we bring about unity, we are working against Babel and with the Spirit.

The unity of the Church is a separate topic, for another time. But briefly: Christian unity requires: 1) unity of doctrine, 2) unity of sacraments, and 3) unity of government. There is One Truth (John 16:13), One Baptism (Eph. 4:5) and One Bread we share (1 Cor. 10), and One Church (Matt. 16:18).

Luke 1:1-4 teaches us that Christianity is first and foremost an event of Divine revelation and redemption, that was then preached about, embodied in the Church, and written down. The Gospel existed as oral apostolic Tradition before it existed as NT Scripture.

Many Protestant Christians at this point would say, “yes, I agree, but that authoritative age of the Apostles ceased with the death of the Apostles. We now know Christian truth solely through the writings they left behind.”

This article is on the end of the Apostolic Era. When they died, what died with them?

Can those who succeed the Apostles still govern the Church with infallible, dogmatic authority? Or was that a unique role only for the Apostles? Can those who succeed the Apostles still teach new revelation, or did that cease with the Apostles?

Protestants agree that the Apostles main form of teaching was spoken word. I wrote in a recent article how writing was very uncommon. They spoke, and their teaching was received authoritatively. This oral teaching is how the Tradition of the Church comes to be. For example, Peter taught new Divine Revelation, teaching how God’s covenant with Israel was brought to its fulfillment in Christ. He taught thousands (Acts 2) that Jesus is the promised Savior and Redeemer of the entire cosmos. Upon hearing this, the crowds asked Peter, “what must we now do to be saved?”

Peter had authority to give an answer to that question because he was given that authority by Jesus. He was sent by Jesus to answer that question.

This Greek word ἀποστέλλω (apostello) means, “sent.”

“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent (ἀποστέλλω) his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent (ἀποστέλλω) his Son to be the expiation for our sins.” - 1 John 4:9-10

Jesus was sent by the Father. Then Jesus sent the Apostles (sent-ones) to Shepherd His flock.

So how did the generations of Shepherds after the Apostles get appointed?

They were sent.

By who?

The Apostles.

What about the generations after them? Did they grant themselves authority to properly teach the faith (prophetic ministry) and administer the sacraments (priestly ministry) and guard the sheep (kingly ministry)?

No. They were sent by the Bishops who had been sent by the Apostles who had been sent by Jesus Christ who had been sent by God the Father.

Did these new pastors and bishops continue with Apostolic ministry? No and yes.

No:

The death of the Apostles signaled the close of new, public divine revelation. Here we are aligned with Protestants. We all believe that God is not revealing anything new about his plan of salvation to the Bishops in the 3rd century, 13th century or 21st century.1

Christ is the fullness and completion of Divine Revelation. What God revealed of Himself in the Law and the Prophets is fulfilled in Christ. The shadow became substance. The betrothal became the wedding feast. The promise became incarnate.

The Church teaches that God’s revelation is gradual… He slowly revealed (and reveals) who He is, and then “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Heb. 1:1-2)

The incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension is the full revelation of God. Jesus is the full gift of God to us, His spouse, to be received by faith, for our salvation.

The Apostles were eye-witnesses to the definitive revelation in Christ Jesus. They testified about Him in a unique way. This is why St. Paul says, the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” (Eph. 2:20) This is also why Jude teaches there is “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)

The Apostles were unique and gave us new divine revelation, as eyewitnesses of Christ. Catholics and Protestants agree on that matter.

Yes:

Yet, Catholicism teaches that Bishops inherit apostolic authority and office. It’s not as if once the Apostles died, the Church which Christ founded no longer had real authority. I wrote previously about the story of the Bible, and in that article I demonstrate how the Bible didn’t suddenly become the governing agent, settling all matters of truth, after the Apostles die. No one in the 3rd century or 9th century (example of post-apostolic eras) just started their own church, “teaching what the Bible says” and “administering sacraments how the Bible says to do it.” I don’t mean to be rude, but that’s illogical and unhistorical.2

The prophetic, priestly, and kingly authority of the Apostles did not cease, but was passed along physically. If someone wanted to know the truth, they asked the Church with Bishops and pastors who succeeded from the Apostles. If someone wanted to receive the Eucharistic Christ, they came to the Church with Bishops and pastors who succeeded from the Apostles. If someone needed to bring their unrepentant friend to people who could authoritatively forgive or excommunicate, they brought him to the Church with Bishops and pastors who succeeded from the Apostles.

I taught on this important doctrine in THIS ARTICLE. The succeeded Bishops interpret, safeguard and pass along “the faith once delivered.” They properly teach the whole Christ. Apostolic Bishops and Pastors continued to faithfully administer the sacraments, which they were tasked with doing. They were given authority by Christ to baptize (Matt. 28:19; John 4:1), institute the Eucharist (DO this in memory of me…), forgive or retain sins (James 5, John 20:21-23), heal (James 5, Matt. 10:1; Lk. 9:1), etc. Lastly, they continue to govern the Church, Shepherding the Sheep, loosing and binding.

So back to my original Protestant rhetorical question: they say, “yes, I agree, but that authoritative age of the Apostles ceased with the death of the Apostles. We now know Christian truth solely through the writings they left behind.”

I hope you see by now, that’s not true. The oral tradition of the Church and the written Scriptures are both part of how God continues to reveal Himself.

…

p.s.

Here is one unavoidable challenge to the Protestant belief about the end of the Apostolic Era… the earliest copies of Old and New Testament manuscripts we have, are after the Apostles died. Why should post-apostolic Bishops be trusted to preserve manuscripts accurately but not trusted to preserve doctrine accurately? In other words, why should Protestants trust that something like John 8 or Mark 16 are part of the Canon (sections of both chapters are later additions to the Gospels), but not trust that the Mass is sacrificial, that baptism is regenerative, or that Mary was perpetually a virgin?

Subscribe now

We begin our new round of this program at the end of May, and as I’ve contemplated how to proceed with this Substack, I find it fitting to just teach all the material I will teach in class. Class includes 45 minute lectures followed by time for Q&A. I much prefer teaching via lecture over writing, but for this Substack I will break my lectures into 2-3 parts, and make the wording different than how I speak. So, you can expect 2-3 articles from me every week from now until the end of November (our program ends on Nov. 22nd).

I will be using the Gospel of Luke and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to teach the “faith of the Church.” This faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed, and it is lived out in the sacraments, the moral life in Christ, and in prayer.

Feel free to respond to these articles with your own comments or questions or pushback. That is always welcomed.

Scripture is a subset of Divine Revelation. When I say Divine Revelation, I mean that God has taken the initiative to reveal Himself to us. This presupposes a relational intention. You don’t reveal yourself to another person unless you want to be known. So all revelation points to the fact that God desires our salvation (1 Tim. 2:4), which is to know God (John 17:3). He wants to be known, for our good.

Man, by reason, is responsible for knowing there is a God, as revealed in creation and in humanity (Romans 1-2). Furthermore, reason points us toward the logical necessity of their only being One God. At this point, you only have three options left: Judaism, Islam or Christianity. All three religions are about worshipping the One True God.

Christianity teaches that this One God is three Persons sharing one essence. Christianity teaches God is most fully revealed, not in Scripture, but in the 2nd person, Christ Jesus, the Son of God and Son of Man.

Luke’s Gospel is divine revelation, it is the Word of God in written form, because he is testifying to the Word of God in the fullest and supreme sense. Luke is writing, inspired by the Holy Spirit, testifying to the person of Jesus Christ. What had “been accomplished” in Christ - namely, our redemption - was put in narrative form and written for Theophilus (meaning, God Lover).

Theophilus had already been taught about Jesus Christ. Luke is writing some 30+ years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and is only attempting to bring more certainty to Theophilus’ belief.

This raises a question.. how did someone in the year 40 AD (someone like Theophilus) come to know about Christ? Luke will expand on this answer in his Gospel account and particularly in his book of Acts, but the answer is: through the Apostles and those the Apostles sent or ordained.

Was Luke an Apostle?

No.

Apostles are the 12 (Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:12-26) plus Paul (Acts 9; 1 Cor. 15:9). Others, like James, are sometimes described as apostles in a secondary sense. To be a “capital-A” Apostle you must have 1) seen the risen Christ and 2) be sent out by Him with His authority to teach, perform miracles, administer sacraments, and govern the Church.

Let me explain that this way….

Consider the world of 40 AD. You have this huge, world-changing event called the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hundreds of people have seen him (1 Cor. 15:6), and are putting pieces together in their own way. The world is dividing into three: Jews, Christians, and Roman pagans. The news of Jesus is spreading, some of it is true and some of it is false (there are dozens of warnings all throughout the NT to be on the lookout for false teachers).

So how do you establish a unified faith with hundreds of eyewitnesses and thousands of 2nd hand witnesses? How does a 1st century Christian know what is true and what is false? They submit to the authority of the Apostles, who carried forth Jesus’ ministry of prophet, priest and king. They spoke Christ’s truth, continuing his ministry as Prophet, they offered Christ’s sacrifice, continuing His ministry as Priest, and they continued His governance as King, binding and loosing in His Church.

So who was Luke? He was a Gentile convert to the Christian faith, who was discipled by Paul and walked alongside of him in his ministry. Along the way, Luke compiled eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, and eventually wrote his Gospel, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But Luke was never a witness to Christ. He learned the Gospel from an Apostle… And then he wrote it down.

Luke 1:1-4 teaches us that Christianity is first and foremost an event of Divine revelation and redemption, then preached, then embodied in the Church, and then written down. The Gospel existed as preached apostolic Tradition before it existed as NT Scripture.

Many Protestant Christians at this point would say, “yes, I agree, but that authoritative age of the Apostles ceased with the death of the Apostles. We now know what is true solely through the writings they left behind.”

My answer to that question is in the next article.

I usually respond, “how do you know they’re extra? Do you know how we have any books in our Bible?”

This is what I want to write about today.

We first need to back way up in history and place ourselves in the ancient world of the 1st century.

Here are a few important facts:

1. In Greco-Roman world, only 7-10% of people were literate. It was a world of oral transmission. People didn’t read things or write things, rather they heard things and memorized them. For example, it was very common for a faithful jew to have large sections of the Torah memorized. Rabbis had the whole thing memorized! That seems impossible to us, but it’s a muscle in our brain that we don’t have to use anymore. But it is a muscle that is there (consider stage actors who memorize lengthy scripts).

2. In Jesus’ day it was common for a synagogue to possess only certain books of the Old Testament. Scrolls were limited and costly, and most synagogues did not have a complete collection. Some might have only had 1-2 scrolls! And if Synagogues didn’t have the Bible as we know it, individuals certainly didn’t! Jesus and His disciples weren’t walking around the Galilee with their leather-bound NIV Old Testament in hand.

3. Very few people knew how to write. Even Paul had scribes (Romans 16:22). There was no such things as paper, but rather papyrus (a durable leaf) and parchment (animal skins), which was the expensive option. Copying and translating was intense work, which is why later in Church history collections of Mass Readings, liturgical guides and scripture sets (if they had them), would be bound in chains somewhere in the church. It’s not that “the church didn’t let people read the Bible.” That’s a privilege we have in our post-printing-press modern world.

4. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, Aramaic was the common language used by Jews, but Greek was the language of the Gentile. Jews knew both, in order to trade and communicate in business.

5. Aramaic came about after the Babylonian exile (6th century BC), but Hebrew preceded it, and was and is preserved as the religious language of the Jewish people.

6. During the 2nd temple period of the Jewish people (400 BC - time of Christ), meaning, after the rebuilding of the Temple and city walls as recorded in Ezra-Nehemiah, Alexander the Great conquered Judea, and Greek became the dominant culture (Hellenism) and language.

7. After Alexander’s conquest, the Jewish people who mainly had resided in Jerusalem, scattered. This is known as the Diaspora (1 Pet. 1:1). Jews began to live all over the Mediterranean world. What it meant to be Jewish began to change. Synagogues were built and became the primary place of worship for the scattered people. The synagogue was where Jews would gather on the Sabbath to pray, read, and sing. Most often, the Rabbis would lead the liturgy of the people. Priests all lived in Jerusalem and continued to offer sacrifices. A few times per year (for example, the Passover), dispersed Jews would come back to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage.

8. During this time, more books were written and translated. This includes the seven Deuterocanonical (meaning, “second canon”) books (all of these dates are approximate): Tobit (200 B.C.), Judith (125 B.C.), Wisdom of Solomon (125 B.C.), ben Sirach (130 B.C.), Baruch (150 B.C.), 1 Maccabees (100 B.C.), & 2 Maccabees (125 B.C.). During this time there were also additions to Daniel (150 B.C.) and Esther (100 B.C.).

9. During this period, Hebrew books began getting translated in Greek. The later collection of those books is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Scriptural collection for Christians in the first three centuries, and the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonical books! Often when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, the inspired authors use the Septuagint translation.

10. Fast-forward a couple hundred years and Jesus is born, and a few of His disciples have their Gospels and Epistles written in Greek, to a Greek-speaking early Christian Church.

With this background in mind…. let’s begin.

There was not a closed “Jewish Canon.”

The fact that there was not a universally fixed and closed Jewish canon in the 1st century is one of the most important points in this discussion. While many sacred writings were already widely recognized—such as the Torah and the Prophets—the exact boundaries of the canon were not yet settled in the way we think of today. For example, Song of Songs’ inspired authority was highly disputed by rabbinic traditions.

The word “canon” derives from the Greek word “kanon” meaning “measuring rod.” Canon functions as the list of books accepted as inspired, and therefore authoritative Scripture. Yet, for something to be “accepted” there has to be an outside body to accept it. Furthermore, for something to be authoritative it has to be given authority.

For example, you and I try and center our moral life around the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. We don’t hear His words as arbitrary teaching possibly said by a “good teacher” of the 1st century who claimed to be the Messiah, but rather, because they are authoritative words spoken by God to be lived out. We know this because Matthew and Luke are Gospel’s inspired by God, accepted by the Church and given to us as authority.

As for the Old Testament “canon,” there was not a set list of authoritative books. There were books recognized as Scripture - the five books of the Torah, the Prophets, and “the Writings” - but it was not a universally fixed list. As I mentioned above, the Old Testament was not a bound collection with a Table of Contents, rather individual scrolls accessible by region.

So when do lists begin circulating?

After the legalization of Christianity in the early 4th century… and what do we discover? Local councils of bishops recognized 73 books in Sacred Scripture: Council of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393), & Carthage (397).

Then, in the Ecumenical, Council of Florence (1431-1449) they identified… wait for it… 73 books in Sacred Scripture, including 46 in the Old Testament:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees1

The reformation happened 70 years after this council.2

Then, after the Reformation, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the same list of books, except this time with a dogmatic stamp of approval. “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (4th Session, 1546)

…

So what’s going on here?

To begin this answer, let’s first discuss St. Jerome.

Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to produce a standard Latin bible in 382 AD. Within a year he had Gospels written in Latin spreading around. By the early 5th century he had completed the entirety of Sacred Scripture. Now, keep in mind, this was not a hard bound book. The printing press was not invented for another thousand years! Almost no one in the world had a completed bible. But what books did he translate? 73 books.3 This is known as the Latin Vulgate.

But Jerome had reservations about the Deuterocanonical list of books. He saw them on a 2nd tier: good for liturgy and edification, but not good for establishing doctrine. He believed that we should only use books written in Hebrew for his Old Testament, but eventually he submitted to the request and command of the Church and included it in the Vulgate. He was a good Catholic who trusted the instruction of Bishops.

This is the main Protestant argument: let’s just stick with St. Jerome and the Hebrew books!

But here’s the kicker with all of this…

The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in Qumran in the mid 20th century), shows us that Tobit and Sirach were also written in Hebrew (and Jewish traditions teach Maccabees was written in Hebrew as well)! They found fragments from a Jewish community who used them liturgically. So when Jerome says that he wanted to only include the Hebrew books in his Vulgate, he really meant he relied on the Hebrew books he was aware of. He likely didn’t have access to, or knowledge about, other Hebrew books. Remember, Jerome didn’t walk around with an Old Testament leather bound Hebrew bible! What’s more likely? The Jewish synagogues around him in Rome likely had a set of Scriptures corresponding to a particular rabbinic canon. But I restate (for the 5th time): there was no universal list of books! Scriptural collections would have varied by region.

Furthermore, before, during, and shortly after St. Jerome, we know for certain that the Deuterocanonical books were recognized as Scripture by Christians. Not only did those three 4th century local councils acknowledge them as “books to be publicly read in church,” but they were quoted by Church Fathers in writings we have access to, as well as liturgical documents from the 2nd century we can testify to (the prayers and readings for the people).

A Few Closing Thoughts to Consider…

1. Martin Luther had reservations about a lot of books in the Bible. He moved these 7 books to the end of his Old Testament and labeled them as “Apocrypha, not equal to Scripture, but are useful and good to read.” But how many protestants today read them? I’d guess almost zero percent. Furthermore, he moved James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation to the back of his New Testament list because he thought they had a lower status. But this raises an important question: what authority determines the canon? Martin Luther?

2. It wasn’t until the 19th century that the books were completely removed from Protestant bibles. Even in the first KJV (1611) the books sat between the OT and NT, labeled as Apocrypha. In the 19th century, a protestant ministry called “The British and Foreign Bible Society” stopped funding books printed with the apocrypha in them. And because of costs, everyone followed suit. So the books completely disappeared.

3. The Protestant reformers thought that by going back to the Hebrew-only OT, what they were doing was preserving the original boundary of Scripture. This is the same logic they thought they were doing with other doctrines (which I’ve addressed in other articles). The error is two-fold: 1) There were multiple Hebrew collections in circulation without any single evidence of one authoritative list used by all faithful Jews of the 1st century. 2) Instead of taking their queues from 1st and 2nd century Jewish collections, they ought to see what Christian communities used authoritatively. Here we will see the Deuterocanonical books played a role in the life of the early Church, and therefore has no right to be taken out 1,500 years later.

4. You ought to read the books! Many Christians have simply never been exposed to these books, which contain truths given to shape your heart, mind, soul and strength. Tobit is my personal favorite! But you’ll also realize these books “aren’t a big deal.” They don’t shift any biblical narrative about God’s creation, redemption and ultimate glory.

Here’s the thing… the most charitable way to say this is that Martin Luther preferred a particular version of the Hebrew canon, and the fact that these seven books supported doctrines he rejected likely reinforced his decision. I am not saying he cut them out of his Scripture simply because he didn’t agree with what they taught, but it’s naive to think it didn’t influence him. I would say the same about his dislike for James’ epistle. Maccabees and Tobit have helped the church form doctrines about purgatory and praying for the dead, as well as almsgiving and indulgences. He didn’t like the doctrines, and he didn’t think these books should form such doctrines.

He followed one historical stream (Hebrew canon), but not the one the early Church ultimately received.

The simple fact is that Scripture no where says within itself what is Scripture. There is no inspired Table of Contents. The Bible you have at home didn't fall down from heaven, or get delivered to us with two-day shipping. It has quite a remarkable story of inspiration, authorship, transmission, and influence. The books you and I know to be inspired and authoritative, the books which shape our lives of faith and morals, are identified, accepted, and passed along to us because of the Roman Catholic Church. Appointed Catholic Bishops agreed on what is in, and what is not in Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. 1 Enoch, the Jubilees, the Gospel of Thomas, Peter and James, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are examples of books floating around in the early church that were not accepted. Why not? Because the Church said so.

We can trust what we have.

All 73 books.

Below is the article coming out in June.

My relationship with the Eucharist is summarized perfectly with five words from Mark’s Gospel: “I believe, help my unbelief.” (9:24) In context, this is a worried father’s response after Jesus promises to heal his possessed daughter. But we can use these words in other contexts. For the purposes of this article, Jesus assures us the Eucharist is His body, blood, soul and divinity, and we believe! And we struggle to believe…

In my time helping people into the Church, Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is often the main point of truth, beauty and goodness which draws people to conversion. But at the same time, as we get into our Eucharistic life, it becomes a main point of struggle. And I might add, a silent struggle (out of fear). So let me struggle publicly for you: “I believe, help my unbelief.”

Faith as the Ascent of Reason

Why do we struggle? First and foremost, the 21st century Church are a people shaped by modern sensibilities. Our day and age attempts to rid the supernatural out of the human consciousness. Therefore, without an intentional act of our will, we are discipled into a naturalistic and materialistic worldview.

In comes our need for faith.

Faith is a supernatural virtue. It’s a gift from God. We receive faith by grace. Faith does not replace reason, but rather, it perfects reason. Faith doesn’t teach to accept things blindly or unintelligibly, but at the same time faith teaches that our sight and intelligence can only lead us so far. As examples… we can reason our way to (a) God, but we accept God as Trinity, by faith. It’s reasonable to conclude that miracles can happen - and oftentimes we have solid evidence of them - but we accept the incarnation, the resurrection, and all miracles, by faith. These things are all part of “the faith of the Church.”

This is precisely why the Eucharist is a struggle. We are accepting something beyond reason. What we see on the altar appears to be something it is not, in substance.

Consider how the priests and deacons diligently clean the altar after the congregation has received. What they are doing transcends reason. To our natural minds, they are wasting time. “Hurry up already, let me get on with my Sunday.” Yet… with every wipe and every gulp, their small actions form our faith. In my own conversion journey, I remember hearing a throw-away comment in a debate, where a Catholic stated, “what you do with the leftovers explains most clearly what you believe about the sacrament.” By faith we accept that Christ is in the elements and He doesn’t deserve to be a crumb on the ground.

Conversion by Reason, Participation by Faith

For many converts, the Eucharist was (and is) reasonable. We are introduced to great books with bullet-proof exegesis of John 6, Jesus’ Eucharistic Institution in the Gospels (Matt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:19-20), and the recognition of Jesus in the bread after the Road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:30-31). We become acquainted with Church history and see the overwhelming and unanimous belief of the ancient Church. For me, the writing of St. Justin, Martyr (in 150 A.D.) was impossible to avoid:

“[Speaking of the Eucharist] For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, ch. 66)

It’s reasonable to accept the Eucharist for what it truly is, and many converts get initiated into the sacramental life of the Church by reason. But reason will not sustain us. We must ascend to faith.

Consider the mouse.

If a mouse snuck its way into a parish and crawled up on the altar after consecration and took a bite of the Host, did it receive Christ? This is a silly scenario but one St. Thomas took seriously because it teaches a bigger and more important point: Christ is truly and substantially present in what is consumed, but sacramental reception requires intention, awareness and a rational soul. The mouse in this scenario consumes the consecrated species - the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ - but does not receive grace. Therefore, the mouse does not commune with God. In other words, Christ is objectively present in the Eucharistic Host and Chalice, but His body, blood, soul and divinity must be received, and reception requires intention of one’s will.

Our true participation in the Eucharist requires our faith.

I don’t want to step beyond what you ought to talk with your pastor or spiritual director about, but new converts… in our on-going life in the Church we must hold the tension of the Eucharist:

On the one end, we are formed by what we do. By this I mean, our faith is strengthened by sacramental grace. Coming forward to receive (and how we receive) forms us. C.S. Lewis famously said, “don’t wait around for feelings of love for your neighbor, rather, begin doing acts of love for your neighbor and you’ll discover your feelings will follow suit.” We can’t become scrupulous and wait for “more faith” whatever or whenever that might be. Come forward and receive you of little faith. Come forward and eat, all who are hungry.

But on the other end, what we are doing in our reception of the sacrament is serious business. We ought not treat a sacred thing, unworthily, lest we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

The tension exists: grace is for unworthy sinners, but we ought not take it lightly.

So when I say, “I struggle with the Eucharist” I mean, I take Him very, very seriously. I am asking Him to enter under my roof and bring healing to my soul. I am saying, “I believe it’s you, help my unbelief.” I am confessing, “I love you, and my heart is often cold.”

It’s my opinion that this ought to be the Eucharistic life of the convert. One of reason and faith. One of trust and love. It keeps us away from two falsehoods: Falsehood #1 teaches that the Eucharist isn’t real so my faith doesn’t matter. This can lead to ritualistic reception, diminishing our life of faith. Falsehood #2 teaches that something is wrong with my faith because I struggle to see Christ clearly in the Eucharist. This sends us out so somehow muster up greater faith (supernatural virtue) on our own (human nature), which is impossible.

So where does that leave us? Not with perfect clarity, and not with perfect feeling—but with an invitation. Week after week, we hear the words, “Behold the Lamb of God,” and we come forward not because we have mastered the mystery, but because we are being drawn into it. We come as those who believe, and as those who are still learning to believe. We come hungry, distracted, sometimes cold, and yet still desiring Him. And in that small act of faith—however weak it feels—Christ meets us. Not because our faith is strong, but because He is faithful. So let your prayer be simple and honest: “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.” And then come forward and receive Him.

We are expecting our 5th child any day now and to love my family better, I need to silence the noise to hear from God. In addition to this, my mom is very sick (stage 4 cancer) and begins her stem cell replacement therapy in March. I want to give her my prayers and time. Add to that, my injuries from my car wreck (Jan of 25) are reemerging and I am having another major surgery and need to give better attention to my body.

Then I also find in myself confusion as to my purpose and intention in all of this.

I started writing this Substack to simply tell my story of becoming Catholic. Those were my first 3 articles. As you may remember me stating, the initial aftermath of me resigning my pastoral job they wanted me to remain silent. So I cooperated. During my time of cooperating, they went about telling my story, and misrepresented me and the Church that I’ve come to love. So I eventually wrote.

I sent the link out to a few friends and 3-4 of my former RUF students who were asking me what the heck happened. That link spread in my small circles, gaining thousands of reads, and I gained a few interested followers.

At the beginning I knew I wanted to write on justification, mostly as a self-defense against the attacks I received from former friends and colleagues who worried I joined a “works-based pagan cult” called Roman Catholicism.

But then I kept writing to the few of you who followed along.

And at this point my reading audience has grown and changed a little bit, so it’ll be good to pause and reimagine why I want to write, and to whom. I hope and pray God makes it clear to me and I don’t intend to write or act until I am given some serious clarity.

So for now, and perhaps for a longer season, I’m pressing pause. Pray that my love for God grows during this season of life.

…

May God give you all the graces needed during this season of Lent. At the end of it all, may you love Him all the more, and hate and fight against all that seeks to kill you.

I’m certain this is the most important and convincing argument in all of Christianity. If you agree with what I say, you should become Catholic.

This is what lies behind every other theological difference.

And now we’re at the end… I have two articles remaining where I will simply state the Catholic “story,” while giving reasons to believe it. Throughout each point I will briefly articulate the reformed disagreement and then articulate why that falls short.

…

Before beginning… Is this just a theological exercise or does this actually matter? In other words, does this impact one’s love and devotion to Jesus Christ, or is this just an intellectual hobby? I’ve pondered this question in much of my writing, lately.

I am certain it’s a matter of the heart, affecting our love and devotion to Jesus, for three reasons:

1. The Catholic Church helps you see and experience Jesus in all His fullness.

2. The heart of Catholic ecclesiology forces us into humility. That’s good, and counter-cultural. It reminds us that we don’t know everything, and it’s good to be a part of something we can’t fully comprehend or explain. This pushes strongly against the secular (and protestant) notion that something isn’t true unless I, personally, believe it’s true.

3. The Church shows us the path unto eternal life in Christ through the law, and gives us the sacraments and all of God’s graces to equip us for the journey.

Here is the Catholic Ecclesiological “Story” written out in bullet points. I will elaborate on half of these points in this article (below), and the 2nd half in the next article.

1. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. He commissioned the Apostles for ministry, giving them authority over 1) the truth of the Gospel and 2) the grace of the sacraments.

2. The Apostles also had authority to appoint new leaders over churches and regions, who were called bishops, elders and deacons. The bishops and elders safeguarded the truth of the Gospel and administered the sacraments. That truth was known as Tradition, some of which later became Sacred Scripture. As the Church progressed throughout history, this sacramental and theological authority was passed on relationally and physically from the bishops and elders to new bishops and elders through the laying on of hands (later known as the sacrament of Holy Orders). Today, all Roman Catholic Bishops are connected to their predecessors, having received authority to pass on the Teaching of the Church and to administer sacraments properly.
   
   Because I was not connected to this lineage, I was not a pastor of the “Church Christ established” but rather a Presbyterian Pastor, which is a separatist Protestant denomination, with a Christ-centered obligation to come into union with the visible Church Christ established (the Roman Catholic Church), per His revealed, divine will. That is what I did, and what I pray all protestant pastors do too.

3. Peter was the lead Apostle, the Shepherd of the Shepherds. He eventually pastored the local Church in Rome and from there, governed the Catholic Church, universally. There is solid historical evidence of his governing and martyrdom in Rome. In fact, his bones remain present there, under the altar at St. Peter’s Basilica. The Archbishop of Rome continue to “sit in the seat of Peter” governing as pastor of Rome and Visible Head of the Universal Church.

4. The Bishops and Elders played, and continue to play, an essential epistemological role, clarifying what is true and false, therefore continuing and advancing clarity and unity in the Faith. The summaries and dogmas written from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is known as “the Faith of the Church.” That Faith is most clearly summarized in the Nicene Creed.

#1

The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. He commissioned the Apostles for ministry, giving them authority over 1) the truth of the Gospel and 2) the grace of the sacraments.

In Brief: Catholic

Jesus founded one Church which was both physical and spiritual. I elaborate on this claim in THIS ARTICLE and in THIS VIDEO.

The Apostles were given authority to teach (Lk. 9:2; Matt. 28:20), which is why their oral (sermons in Acts) and written teaching (see the New Testament) was accepted by the New Covenant Church. This is the truth they were tasked with guarding and passing on.

They were given authority by Christ to baptize (Matt. 28:19; John 4:1), institute the Eucharist (DO this in memory of me…), forgive or retain sins (John 20:21-23), heal (Matt. 10:1; Lk. 9:1), etc. These are the sacraments they are tasked with administering.

In Brief: Reformed

Jesus founded a spiritual Church and gave instruction to the Apostles for how to construct physical communities, where the spiritual Church would gather (i.e. the elect of Christ). “The Church” is spiritual, but “local churches” are physical which contain members of the invisible Church as well as unbelievers.

For a local church to be a “True” Church, it has nothing to do with the succession of their leaders linking back to the Apostles and appointed Bishops, rather, the Scripture has to be used as a self-evident manual, guiding them just as Jesus commands. This divinely inspired, infallible book, gives a manual to be followed, clearing articulating 1) the entirety of the Apostolic faith to be preached and taught, and 2) the simple outlining for how many sacraments there are, how to administer them, who can administer them, and who should receive them. When a Church administers the sacraments according to the standard of Scripture, and when it faithfully preaches the apostolic faith (known as the Gospel) according to the clear truth revealed in Scripture, and when the church administers proper discipline by properly ordained minsters (which I’ll get to in my next point), then - and only then - is it a True Church, able to link itself back to “the Church” which Jesus founded.

So...

1 ) The Church is ONE in that there there is only one “true” church, which is not an institution but a people, called the elect.

2 ) The Church is HOLY in that it is set apart for sanctification and mission.

3 ) The Church is CATHOLIC in the those that are elected / called / chosen, are all over the world. The Gospel has had an universal reach.

4 ) The Church is APOSTOLIC in that the Scripture - given to us by the Apostles - guides the spiritual Church in Word and Sacrament, self-attesting to the truth of the Apostles, handed on from generation to generation.

In Brief: My Critique

As I’ve mentioned in other articles, the Protestant ecclesiological claim that the Church is simply spiritual in nature has no precedent in Scripture or Church history. In Israel, if you wanted to be part of the Covenantal community, you took on all of the physical changes that would entail. In the New Covenant community, you do the same, receiving the physical sacraments of the New Covenant, and being in a Church overseen by an appointed Bishop.

Reformed ecclesiology is a completely novel doctrine, invented by the Reformers as a way of distancing themselves from the scandal they witnessed in Rome. This ecclesiology has led to a gnostic-ish Christianity, where the physical serves no “real” purpose, rather it serves as sign only. The ripple effect of this is seen in a low view of sacraments, a low view of church architecture, a loss of bodily spiritual disciplines and prayer (i.e. fasting and asceticism), an iconoclast which stripped away beauty and art from the imagination, a loss of moral guidance in modern day matters of sexuality and economics, and for some, a loss of simple necessity for worshiping in or with a church.

#2

The Apostles also had authority to appoint new leaders over churches and regions, who were called bishops, elders and deacons. The bishops and elders safeguarded the truth of the Gospel and administered the sacraments. That truth was known as Tradition, some of which later became Sacred Scripture. As the Church progressed throughout history, this sacramental and theological authority was passed on relationally and physically from the bishops and elders to new bishops and elders through the laying on of hands (later known as the sacrament of Holy Orders). Today, all Roman Catholic Bishops are connected to their predecessors, having received authority to pass on the Teaching of the Church and to administer sacraments properly.

Because I was not connected to this lineage, I was not a pastor of the “Church Christ established” but rather a Presbyterian Pastor, which is a separatist Protestant denomination, with a Christ-centered obligation to come into union with the visible Church Christ established (the Roman Catholic Church), per His revealed, divine will. That is what I did, and what I pray all protestant pastors do too.

In Brief: Catholic

Authority is passed on from someone previously in authority. No one in America can learn all the ins and outs of what it means to be a President, and then declare themselves as such, promising to govern as all the documents say they are to govern, creating around them a new senate, etc.

No.

All positions of authority are succeeded through a process of succession. The former passes the baton to the incoming. This is true in politics and it’s true in Christ’s Church. Never in history did someone claim to be the new priest or bishop of a region or church without authority being given to him. In fact, Acts 15 rebukes people who acted in that way. Authority is not self-generated, rather it is received. Judges are sworn in. Doctors receive licenses after intensive training under previously licensed physicians. Police Officers must be commissioned and given authority to carry out justice. You can’t just learn the ropes and buy a gavel, a medical coat, or an officer badge, and appoint yourself as an authoritative figure.

That’s true in temporal institutions and it’s true in Christ’s spiritual institution.

Biblical proof? Paul’s relationship with Timothy and Titus important early church evidence of Apostolic Succession. St. Paul was a capital-A, Apostle, meaning, he had a direct encounter with the risen Lord and was commissioned directly from Him (as told in Galatians 1:11-18). He then raised up a new leader, St. Timothy, giving him authority as a minister of the Gospel (Acts 19:22; 20:4), through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14). Paul was given authority and then passed this authority onto Timothy, entrusting him with teaching, guarding doctrine, governing, and ordaining others. St. Timothy later became the Bishop of Ephesus (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6; 2:2).

Titus was a Gentile convert because of Paul’s ministry, and later, became a trusted companion of Paul. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council, Paul brings an uncircumcised Gentile as living proof of God’s work among the nations (Acts 15; Galatians 2:1–3), which is almost certainly Titus. Like Timothy, Titus was an appointed Bishop (though that word isn’t used) tasked with guarding the faith and appointing new priests (Titus 1:5).

In Brief: Reformed

Ephesians 2:20 says there was a unique time of the prophets and then of the apostles, which the Church is built on. The Apostles possessed a unique authority given to them by Christ. They then gave us the apostolic teaching, contained in it’s entirety, in the Word of God. The Apostles showed us the necessary components of a “true Church” namely, proper teaching of the Word, proper administration of the sacraments, and church government (elders and deacons, Acts 6, 1 Tim 3, etc).

In short, a church is Apostolic not through physical succession, but through spiritual succession: when you do as they did and when you teach as they taught.

In Brief: Catholic Critique

The Protestant concept of “being apostolic” appeals to a standard which does not exist. “Proper” teaching and administration is an entirely subjective concept by which each individual church community does things they perceive to be right, while dismissing other communities who are doing things they believe to be right.

Secondarily, you’ll often hear protestants appeal to “unity around the essentials” and “liberty around the non-essentials.” Yet, if matters of the Gospel, sacraments, and church government, were non-essential issues, then the Protestant churches should simply be one church. Essentially, if baptizing infants doesn’t “really” matter, or if a congregation is free to appoint its own leaders, then Presbyterian and Baptist Churches should unite for the sake of unity over the essentials.

I’ve wanted to continue my series titled, “A Visible Church” and this is Part 5. I told chatGPT to respond as “the world’s greatest reformed theologian,” and so it did. Below, I will post the transcript of my debate:

This is how it all started:

ME: When was Roman Catholic Church founded and who founded it?

AI: I challenge the premise behind your question. The Roman Catholic Church, as a distinct institution teaching doctrines rejected by the Reformers, did not exist in the apostolic age. What later came to be called the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ developed gradually over centuries and reached a recognizable form in the Middle Ages.

The true Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2). The Roman Catholic Church is a later historical development within that Church.

ME: Ok, so a church isn’t a church until its doctrines are accurate? It seems you reject the Roman Catholic church’s apostolic existence because it isn’t true to the apostolic teaching. Is that correct?

AI: No. We do not reject the Roman Catholic Church’s apostolic existence. We reject Rome’s claim to be the normative, indefectible guardian of apostolic teaching. Rome is a true but corrupted church, not a false church or non-church. The Church is constituted by Christ through Word and sacrament according to Scripture; doctrinal error can corrupt a church without annihilating it, and Rome is judged by that standard—not rejected as non-apostolic, but denied exclusive authority.

ME: If the Church is constituted by Christ through Word and sacrament, what makes a sacrament valid in your reformed opinion?

AI: A sacrament is valid when Christ’s institution is faithfully followed within the Church by a lawful minister, even though its saving efficacy depends on faith, not the rite itself.

ME: So a sacrament has to be "administered by a lawfully called minister" who is recognized by the church… So, essentially, Joe Schmoe cant get up from his seat and administer?

AI: Yes, correct. Joe Schmoe cannot validly administer a sacrament on his own authority. Sacraments require a public, ecclesial commission, not private initiative. Authority comes from Christ through the Church, not from individual sincerity or correctness.

ME: You say, “Authority comes from Christ through the Church.” What church are you referring to?

AI: “The Church” here means the visible, covenantal community of Christ’s people — locally gathered and organized under elders and ministers — recognized as part of the wider body of believers.

• Not a single global hierarchy

• Not a “Roman Church” specifically

• Not every self-identified Christian group

Authority is exercised where Christ’s Word is preached and the sacraments are administered faithfully in a structured, recognized community.

ME: But, essentially, at some point in time, those appointed officers were self-appointed. Correct?

AI: Not exactly — but close. Early on, the first ministers (apostles, elders) were appointed directly by Christ or the apostles. As the Church grew, communities ordained new elders and ministers themselves, using the apostolic pattern (Acts 6, Titus 1:5). So yes, over time, officers were appointed by local communities rather than directly by an apostle, but always under Christ’s command and Scripture’s pattern, not purely self-invented.

ME: Hmmm, I have to disagree with you about the apostolic process of ordination. But, after the time of the apostles, how were elders and deacons appointed? Let’s just scan history from the 3rd century until the 15th century…

AI: Got it — post-apostolic, roughly 3rd–15th centuries:

• Authority flowed from bishops, not purely local vote.

• The bishop was seen as the channel of apostolic succession; elders and deacons acted under his supervision.

• The pattern became increasingly hierarchical over the Middle Ages, especially as dioceses consolidated.

  ---

ME: Ok, so they required episcopal ordination, meaning their authority was either given to them or recognized by a human person, called a Bishop. Yes or no?

AI: Yes. Authority was given or recognized by a bishop — the bishop acted as the channel through which Christ’s authority was exercised in the Church.

ME: Then post-reformation that stopped and new church communities began to self-appoint or self-recognize their own authority and create new ecclesial structures, putting themselves in charge, governing with their own new interpretations of 1) scripture, 2) sacraments, and 3) government. Right?

AI: Yes — precisely.

• After the Reformation, many communities no longer relied on episcopal ordination as a channel of authority.

• They appointed their own elders and ministers, claiming legitimacy from Scripture and the Spirit rather than a historical bishop.

• They restructured governance, sacraments, and preaching according to their interpretation of Scripture.

  ---

ME: So back to my earlier question... you said, "Church authority flows through Christ’s appointed officers" and I said, "but, essentially, at some point in time, those appointed officers were self-appointed. Correct?"

Now, based on what you just said, how is Christ appointing those people?

AI: Exactly — that’s the tension.

• Christ appoints officers through Scripture and the Spirit, not directly or magically.

• In the post-Reformation model, communities recognize and ordain their own leaders, claiming they are acting under Christ’s authority as revealed in Scripture.

• So Christ’s appointment is mediated by the community’s faithful adherence to biblical patterns, not by historic episcopal succession.

  ---

ME: Ok. So Joe Schmoe can’t get up and recognize his own authority to administer sacraments, right?

AI: Correct — Joe Shmoe alone cannot confer or recognize his own authority. Authority in the Reformed system is ecclesial and communal.

ME: But the origin of every/most authority structures, post-reformation, is a bunch of Joe Schmoe's who at some point "got up and recognized his own authority." Right?

AI: Yes — that is a fair and accurate critique. Briefly:

• In a sense, the “first generation” did act like Joe Shmoe, asserting ecclesial authority and ordaining others.

• Their legitimacy is self-consciously derived from Scripture and communal recognition, not historical apostolic succession.

The origin of Reformed authority is indeed a human claim grounded in Scripture, rather than episcopal appointment — the first elders effectively recognized themselves under biblical warrant.

ME: So are elders in a denomination, say the Presbyterian Church of America (PCUSA) or the PCA, pastors of the Church which Christ established?

AI: In the Reformed view, yes, they are pastors of the Church Christ established, but with a big qualification: They exercise Christ’s authority through Scripture and Spirit, not through historic episcopal succession. PCUSA or PCA elders are considered pastors of Christ’s Church if they minister faithfully according to Scripture, even without episcopal lineage.

ME: Do you see the serious issue with statements like "if they minister faithfully according to scripture?" It appeals to a standard that is not stated. This creates the PCA and PCUSA both claiming faithfulness while rebuking the other for their unfaithfulness. I was a former PCA pastor and the PCUSA were a bunch of "unbiblical liberals" in my mind because they didn’t meet my self-defined, and tradition-defined standard. And I’m certain the PCUSA pastors thought of me in a similar, negative way.

AI: Yes — I see exactly the problem, and you’ve described it clearly.

• “Faithfully according to Scripture” sounds principled, but it is not self-defining.

• Without an agreed interpretive standard, it becomes relativized: each group claims faithfulness and judges others unfaithful.

• That is exactly why the post-Reformation world splintered into dozens of denominations, each believing it alone preserves the true faith.

• The Reformed claim is that Scripture itself is the standard, but human interpretation is fallible, so disputes are inevitable.

One-line summary:

Without a central, binding authority to define “faithful Scripture application,” appeals to faithfulness cannot prevent fragmentation or mutual rebuke.

ME: But if Jesus' will is unity (John 17), how can a person understand the work of the reformation as anything other than opposite His will?

AI: I hear you — and you’re putting your finger on the deep tension that the Reformed themselves must wrestle with. Briefly:

• Reformed theology claims to be faithful to Scripture, not to oppose Christ’s will.

• Yet the practical fruit has often been fragmentation, conflict, and mutual judgment — clearly at odds with Christ’s desire for unity (John 17:21).

  ---

ME: I can’t help but conclude that the real tension is people just don’t want to become Roman Catholic.

AI: I hear you — and I think you’ve named the psychological and existential pressure point very accurately. Briefly:

• Yes, many Protestants (including Reformed) are resistant to affirming your points because they see where the logic could lead.

• And yes, “I don’t want to become Roman Catholic” is often an unspoken motivator — not always out of bad faith, but out of fear of conceding too much too quickly.

That said, the resistance is not only psychological. At its best, it’s this judgment:

Even if Scripture and history strongly support visible authority, unity, and binding doctrine, we are not convinced they support an indefectible, centralized, infallible office.

You’re pressing exactly where the Reformed position feels thinnest — and that’s legitimate. Go ahead and return to your line of questioning.

ME: I think I’ll be done and chalk it up as a victory against you. Just remember me as being kind to you when you come to kill us all.

(I kid… I didn’t say that last sentence)

You don’t have to imagine for very long.

No command in Scripture has come under greater scrutiny than “thou shall not commit adultery.” How - precisely - are we to apply this in our day and age? And why do Christians apply it differently?

The latter question… that’s what this article is about.

Let me introduce you to a handful of important words and concepts. These six things are all separate, yet all work together. It’s important to know how.

1) Desire, 2) The Will, 3) The Conscience, 4) Virtue, 5) Morals, 6) Freedom

1 ) Desire

The human person is a person of desire. We act on what we most deeply desire.

Some of those desires are “natural” or “unconscious.” For example, desiring food happens naturally or unconsciously when we feel hungry.

Most of our desires are “rational,” meaning they engage our intellect. If my wife leaves for a girls night and the kitchen is a mess, I can desire to sit on the couch and read a book, but I can also desire to please my wife and clean the kitchen.

Those would be my competing desires.

Additionally, we can shape our desires. CS Lewis famously says, “don’t sit around waiting to feel love for your neighbor, rather, do acts of love for your neighbor and you’ll soon realize your love for them has grown.” I will expand more on this idea at the bottom of this article.

Lastly, God teaches us that we ought not trust all of our desires. Because of our fallen nature, we often want what is not good or holy. Our desires are a mixed bag, and if unchecked, they will deceive us into personal sin. John warns us, “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” (1 Jn 2:16–17) James warns us, “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (James 1:14–15)

2 ) The Will

The will is the internal movement of our person; body and soul. It is created to be free and destined for freedom (Gal. 5:1), which comes from complete union with God’s will.

God desires our “heart” which is another way of saying, He desires our obedient action done out of love (desire), not out of obligation. That said, often times obligation forms the will toward love. In other words, through our choices, we can shape what we desire.

3 ) The Conscience

“Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed.” - CCC 1778

In other words, it’s what we internally perceive to be good and it is also the internal alarm system which recognizes objective guilt when something evil has been chosen. Let me teach this by example:

If a child is raised in a family of professional thieves, then going to the gas station and stealing a bag of candy, when dared by friends, would be second nature. They have a malformed understanding of what is right and wrong, and therefore their “perceived good” isn’t actual good. Whereas, if someone if raised in a “upright” family, they would go into the gas station and have a real battle of the will if dared to steal a bag of candy. If they chose to do it, their conscience would alert them to the objective guilt they now have. If that child continues to do it, their conscience will become more and more malformed, potentially getting them to a point where they no longer hear the siren of guilt, and therefore no longer have feelings of contrition.

In either situation, stealing is in the category of morals, and it is objectively wrong. So this demonstrates how people experience differently, objective morality. Our consciences can be more or less aimed at the real and objective good.

4 ) Virtue

There are four “cardinal virtues” which every human ought to grow in: prudence, justice, courage, and temperance. There are three “Christian virtues” which every Christian ought to grow in: faith, hope and charity.

The level of virtue which we possess is like a well-tended-to garden that allows for more rain to saturate and water the plants. If we possess virtue, grace makes more impact in our life. The person entangled in more vice has less room for grace to take root.

Virtue is a soul-level muscle for what is good, which we grow through habit and choice and repentance.

For example… When we choose to do what is perceived to be good, then we grow in prudence, which is defined as choosing to do the right thing.

Another example…. throughout of lives we struggle with our internal desires. On the one hand we desire safety and comfort, but on the other hand we desire to be sacrificial. When we then choose to do something sacrificial at the cost of our comfort, this is the virtue of courage. When we move forward in life, with our actions, though the situation and circumstances seem despairing, this is the virtue of hope.

The highest virtue is charity: When we make choices, no matter the cost, because of a pure love of God. Only Christians possess this virtue, and only it will remain into eternity (1 Cor. 13).

Through practicing these virtues, we grow in these virtues. Vice, on the other hand, is the habitual disposition for what is objectively bad. Vice grows within us as we continually choose what is bad.

5 ) Morals

Morals are the objective good and bad, right and wrong, true and false. These morals are known in the human heart, and shape all cultures and people no matter their awareness of God’s revealed law. We all possess access to God’s internal law, which are moral standards of the heart given to every human person, made in the image of God. Again, a person’s conscience can be malformed, making them less and less aware of this moral standard and objective guilt, but that is a separate thing. God’s morality is like an onion being peeled back. It begins in the heart, accessible to all people. It’s expanded on and revealed for a particular people in time - Israel - and still guides His people today into salvation - the Church. The Mosaic law was perfected by Christ, bringing out the fullness of its intention and design (peeling the onion back further). The Holy Spirit then continued to apply this moral standard through the teaching of the Apostles, and that teaching continues today in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church continues to apply God’s revealed law, to modern day situations.

6 ) Freedom

As seen by Christ, complete freedom is when our human will is united to God’s will. Jesus possessed a human will and a divine will, yet because he was without sin, He always acted with perfect virtue of charity, confirmed to God’s will. He asked if there was another way for salvation, yet surrendered His human will under the perfect will of God: “yet not my will, but your will be done.”

In heaven we will be perfectly free, still possessing a will, yet completely united to God and His eternal will.

Putting all of this into practice…

The terrorists on 9/11 did what they perceived was good. They acted with great courage, desiring to please their god, and protect their people from a perceived threat, namely America. So what is the problem? Their perception of good was objectively evil. A internal standard of morality was silenced at some point, through a false standard taught to them, in turn corrupting their conscience. They knew internally that murder was evil, which is why they certainly justified what they did, not seeing their actions as murder but as protection of a people (i.e. a form of self-defense). They possessed real virtue of courage, it was just grievously misplaced.

That is an extreme example, but it exposes how desire, will, conscience, virtue, and morality all work together.

So back to my original question: why do Christians apply sexual morality differently? Here I would insert in a troublesome Protestant Christian notion: “The Lord is the only Lord of my conscience.” This is the hidden heartbeat of the reformation. Another way to put it is, “no one can tell me what is right and wrong besides Jesus Christ.” This in turn made the Scriptures act in a way it was never intended to act: an independent moral guide, supposed to clearly teach moral standard, if read and personally interpreted correctly.

I think we’ve all seen the downfall of this.

What is the Catholic position on this? Christ is the Lord of our conscience, and He speaks to us through the Church which He founded, what later came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church. He guides us without error in all matters of faith and morals.

So if we want sexual freedom, we learn the sexual moral standard spoken through Christ’s Church. We then shape our conscience by it, humbly submitting ourselves under it so virtue can be built, and guilt can be recognized, leading us to repentance. Through this process we begin to choose what is right. Over time, those choices form new and holy desires. Sooner or later we discover we actually desire what is objectively good, which leads to our happiness.

In other words, the law begins to taste sweeter than honey (Ps. 19).

The Gospel reading for January 1st reads:

“When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” - Luke 2:21

This tied together with our passage from the New Testament:

“When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” - Galatians 4:4-5

Liturgically speaking, up until the 1960’s, January 1st was the day the Church celebrated the circumcision of Christ and the naming of Christ, which was given on the 8th day (Luke 1:59, 2:21). Now we celebrate the Name of Christ on January 3rd and although we still read of His circumcision in the Gospel reading, the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, has us emphasize the 2nd part of the Galatians passage, “born of a woman,” which highlights Mary, the Mother of God.

Anyways… several questions to answer:

1 ) What was the significance of circumcision?

2 ) Why was Jesus circumcised?

3 ) What does it mean to be redeemed from being “under the law?”

Let’s answer these one-by-one.

1 ) What was the significance of circumcision?

Circumcision was the covenantal sign in the Old Testament, made with Abraham (Genesis 17:9–14) and to be given to all Jewish boys on the 8th day (Leviticus 12:3). It was given on the 8th day - as was the ordination of Old Covenant priests, among other temple rituals - to symbolize a new, sacred beginning, after the seven days of creation. The eighth day transcends nature and a baby boy entered covenant.

So, what was its significance?

1) It was the sign of identity as God’s people, Israel, the prefigured Kingdom.

2) Blood represented life, so the shedding of blood at one’s circumcision was a way of offering your son’s life to God.

3) Circumcision was an outward sign meant to lead people to an inward reality, namely what God commanded we do with our heart and our mind and our soul. In circumcision, you were symbolically cutting away sin and consecrating yourself to God. This is why God commands through Moses, saying, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart.” (Deuteronomy 10:16)

2 ) So why Jesus circumcised?

Well, first off, Jesus was the “Messiah” or the “Christ” meaning the King of the Jews. So He became fully Jewish to redeem the Jewish people. This was the redemptive power of the incarnation. He became like all of creation - being born of a woman - but He more specifically became like all of Israel - being born under the law (beginning with circumcision).

The closest analogy I can think of is the powerful ministry happening at Crossover Impact in North Tulsa. I am friends with - and a big fan of - the pastors at Crossover Community Church. One of the essentials to their ministry approach is “relocation.” They want their church members to move to the neighborhoods near the church - no matter the financial class you are in - so that you understand the needs of the community as part of the community, before you work to redeem the community. This helps fight against what’s known as “White Messiah Complex” with inter-racial ministry (wealthy white people coming to “save” poorer black communities).

Anyways, Jesus became completely human and completely Jewish to redeem the human and Jewish race.

Additionally, St. Thomas points out a matter of practicality as well… Jesus was circumcised to fulfill the law, to reveal the reality of his human flesh, and to remove scandal about Him and His mission. We see this today… imagine if a Catholic priest didn’t ever go to confession or pray a rosary. You’d have a hard time accepting his vocation as your pastor - in fact, he wouldn’t be allowed to be a priest if not maintaining the obligation of the sacraments.

3 ) What does it mean to be redeemed from being “under the law?”

Let me first explain what it doesn’t mean… as a former Presbyterian pastor and Reformed Seminary graduate, I understood this to mean the following:

1. We Christians are obligated to keep the law perfectly in order to enjoy a relationship with God.

2. None of us are able to keep the law - and it’s demands - perfectly.

3. By being born under the law, our Savior consented to fulfill its demands so that we can be released from the death sentence against those who do not obey it perfectly.

4. Having faith therefore means, we believe he died for our sins and credits to us his perfect obedience. At that first moment of faith, we are justified, i.e. made right with God.

5. It’s summarized this way: “In Adam we failed to please the Lord, and a just God cannot simply set His commands aside. His justice demands that His law be kept. In substance, the moral commands given to Adam are found in the Mosaic law, and by keeping these commands, our Savior did what we never could. By coming under the law and living a perfect life, He kept God’s demands on our behalf. His record of perfect law keeping is now ours by faith alone in Him.”1

A large reason I became Catholic is because I came to realize that is not what the Gospel is, nor is it what this Galatians passage means.

So what does it mean to be redeemed from under the law?

First of all, the term, “those under the law” is another way of saying the Jewish people. Jesus came first and foremost to save the lost sheep of Israel. So we shouldn’t read much into this, and we shouldn’t insert terms and ideas into it, like “demands” and “to be in relationship with God we must be seen as perfectly obedient to the law.”

Second of all, we are redeemed from the ceremonial aspects of the law but not the moral obligations of the law. This means, we can eat pork, we don’t circumcise our kids to be in covenant with God, and we don’t go through ritual cleansing acts to be in God’s presence, because Jesus fulfilled the law. But the moral law remains valid: we are not to commit adultery, kill, steal, etc. We are to be faithful to moral obligations of the covenant.

Third of all - and this is a bit more theological - the Mosaic Law functioned as a temporary, God-given pedagogy. “The Law was our custodian (paidagōgos) until Christ came.” (Galatians 3:24) The Law guided, disciplined, and ordered Israel toward the coming Messiah, but it did not confer grace ex opere operato (by the work worked), like the sacraments do in the New Covenant. “The Law could not justify… because it did not give the Spirit.”(Romans 8:3)

“The Old Law gave knowledge of sin but not the grace to avoid it.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

So we are redeemed from the law as a tutor, and now given the Spirit of God to indwell within us. The law was written on our hearts as the prophets foretold.

The Reformed view says, “the Law demands perfect obedience, but Christ fulfills the Law instead of us.

The Catholic view doesn’t use the same language… we teach the law prepared Israel for Christ, and Christ perfects and fulfills the law. He now fulfills the law in us and with us by His grace and our cooperation with it.

Let me summarize:

Christ entered the unfinished covenant taking upon Himself all of its obligations and signs. He became the perfect tutor - and Savior - bringing the law to its intended completion in us, opening the way to sanctifying grace, which the Law could only promise.

Here are 10 examples:

1 ) The Eucharist is Jesus

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you;
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20)

… So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day... (John 6:51–58)

We believe what Jesus says: the Eucharist is His body and blood, and we must eat of it to have eternal life.

2 ) Baptism Saves

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5)

We believe what Jesus says: we are saved by faith and baptism (by water).

3 ) Priests Have Authority to Forgive Sins

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

We believe what Jesus says: in the sacrament of confession, the Priests are given power to absolve us of our sins.

4 ) Mary is our Mother

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:25–27)

We believe what Jesus says: Mary was given to John and John was given to Mary. We are united to John because of our faith - he is our brother in Christ. Therefore, Mary is our Mother. If this was just an exchange like, “hey John, take care of my mom” that would have been improper because Jesus had relatives who would have taken on that responsibility according to Jewish custom.

5 ) No Remarriage After Divorce

“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,
and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:16; Mark 10:2–12; Matthew 19:3–9)

We believe what Jesus says: those who have been properly married and then divorced, cannot be remarried, lest they become adulterers. Adulterers cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

6 ) We Receive Merits for Good Works

When you give alms…when you pray… when you fast… your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-18)

And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water… he shall not lose his reward.” (Matthew 10:40-42)

“For the Son of man is to come with his angels… and then he will repay every man for what he has done.” (Matthew 16:27)

35 “Love your enemies… and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High.” (Luke 6:35)

“…you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:12–14)

We believe what Jesus says: we are rewarded - specifically, not vaguely “with heaven” - for our obedience to God’s commands.

7 ) You Can Lose your Salvation

“And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:12–13; Matthew 10:22; Mark 13:13)

We believe what Jesus says: many people will lose their salvation on this pilgrimage of faith. He who endures unto the end will be saved.

8 ) Jesus Built His Church on Peter

And I tell you, you are Peter (which means, “rock”), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

We believe what Jesus says: Jesus has a Church and Peter is the rock on which it stands. There is obviously much more to add to this, which I’ve written about HERE.

9 ) The Church Teaches the Truth of God

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

We believe what Jesus says: as the Apostles went out and preached, they preached with God’s authority. That teaching continues today. The Church is the mouthpiece of God.

10 ) We Must Listen to, and Obey, What the Church Teaches

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)

We believe what Jesus says: the institution of the Church has authority in matters of correction, discipline, and ultimately, binding and loosing of sins.

…

There are many more passages in the Gospels, in Acts and in the Epistles which we read literally. But I write this as a small sample. It’s one thing to dismiss 1, 2 or 3 of these as figurative. But for the protestant, no matter your denomination, you read most or all of these with some level of figurative speech. It ought to make you consider if Catholics - who have contemplated the words of Christ for 2,000 years - might be right.

I came to believe they were.