Trinitarian Baptism Formula?

Below is a short exchange from a Facebook conversation that I had. I have chopped out the relevant comments as the conversation drifted off topic.

Discussion on correct method for baptising

The initial question posed was the following:

What is the correct mode of baptizum & what formula & name(s) should be used?

My first response was the following:

Well, Matthew 28 is quite clear on which names must be used: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The correct mode of baptism is a slightly more complicated issue. The New Testament doesn't make explicit references to how baptism SHOULD be administered however we do know that many were baptised by full emersion. We also know from documents such as the Didache (written in the first century) that sprinkling or pouring of water was also permitted in the early Church as a valid form of baptism. Therefore, I think it's fair to conclude that both methods are valid forms of baptising.

A commentator responded:

"baptize means to immerse"

My response was the following which I believe to be an adequate rebuttal:

Hi #####, I believe that that is an oversimplification. Baptise certainly means immerse, but it doesn't only mean that. In Luke 11:38, for example, the same word is used to mean wash.

Certainly the early Christians didn't exclusively baptise by immersion. As I said, in the early Church both forms were acceptable and here is the direct quote from the Didache written in AD70:

7: Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm. If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.

Discussion on the correct formula for baptising

I have to say that whilst I had heard before of differing opinions regarding the valid method of baptising (immersion/pouring/sprinkling) I was not aware of a debate with regards to the formula that should be used; I assumed that it was always done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, a later commentator indeed questions which formula should be used. 

Below is our brief exchange beginning with the original posters follow-up comment:

Well, well, I put the comment up to see what you all think, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13 v1 "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word of God be established", there is only one ref for Father, Son & Holy Ghost, also in col 3 v17,it says "let everything you do weather in word or deed let all be done in the name of Jesus", this ref does not omit baptizum, on the other hand there are at least 10 refs in the new test for Jesus name baptizum.


I asked for clarification:

Hi #####, hope you're well. I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing. Are you saying we should baptise using only the name of Jesus?

They responded:

ONLY JESUS NAME, Acts 2 v38.

My previous posts say why

After some further research my response was the following:

Hi #####. I find that you are still left with the "problem" of Matthew 28:19 with regards to your interpretation. You seem to dismiss it by saying it was only mentioned once. This is completely inadequate as Scripture isn't a democracy where the most references wins; it's the full and coherent Word of God. Therefore we must reconcile the verses.

First of all, I'd say that Matthew 28:19 is the only verse explicitly relating to how Baptism should be administered, rather than a reference to Baptism. When Baptism is described in Acts it is not prescriptive as was the case in Matthew 28. We can see this because in Acts Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" and at other times says "Jesus Christ" which would suggest that he wasn't so much concerned with prescribing the explicit formula that was used but rather was looking to say something else such as distinguishing Christian baptism from other Baptism's around at the time; such as John's, the Jewish one, pagan one etc. 

For example, I can say that I was baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I could also say now that I repented and was baptised in the name of Jesus without an issue; ##### explained well how this isn't a contradiction. ***

I also think it would be wise to see how the early Church understood which baptism formula that should be used. The Didache document is just one of many examples that speak of the Trinitarian formula being used for baptism in the early Church: "Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."

Conclusion

I'm still slightly surprised by the conversation, and further research would lead me to suggest that the second commentor is most likely a Jesus Only/Oneness Pentecostal. Whilst most of the commentators on this particular discussion, and the vast majority of Protestants in general, do indeed baptise correctly using the Trinitarian formula this type of conversation really affirms my faith in the One, True, Catholic Church as being the only infallible interpretor of Holy Scripture and the problem of Sola Scriptura as a foundation for doctrinal matters. It also highlights the need for good, solid Catholic apologetics (see 1 Peter 3:15).

God bless.

*** comment referred to: the right way Matthew 28:19 all the way Acts is just the same Because Jesus is God the fullness of the God head bodily dwells in the Son Jesus is the son God manifested himself into man Jesus is that Man JESUS IS GOD.

Pro-Life Event - Glasgow

I was fortunate enough to be involved in a beautiful pro-life event today in Glasgow which involved a rosary, followed by a procession to Glasgow Cathedral. There was a good turn out, especially considering the weather, and it was great to see so many young faces in the crowd.

Over 500 people each day are denied the right to live in the UK and since the Abortion Law was passed in 1967 over 8 millions abortions have been carried out.

Sister Cristina - Like a..secular woman?

Does this make any other Catholic watching feel very uncomfortable...

Now compare that to truly beautiful music such as the Georgian chant below which lifts one's soul to heavenly things:

Cardinal Burke on the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops

I highly recommend listening to this wonderful interview by Raymond Arroyo with Cardinal Burke. Cardinal Burke has a wonderful grasp of Catholicism and is always a pleasure to listen to. Here are his final words from the interview but please listen to the whole thing:

"What I'm hoping is that the Church's really rich and beautiful Magisterium with regards to marriage and the family will be brought to light again and held up. I think of, for instance, of the encyclical Casti Connubi of Pius XI, I think of Familiaris Consortio, I think of Humanae Vitae. There is just a whole body of wonderful teaching on marriage and the family and so I really hope that the Synod will draw us all to go back and plum again the depths of that teaching"

Bishop Galantino Comments - Irregular Matrimonial Situations

I wish I didn't have to write another article about comments people have made but it's called for and I will try to do so with as much charity as possible. It's not clear exactly what Bishop Galantino meant by certain phrases and so please take this as a general criticism of the comments and commentary attributed to him in the media which may or may not be related to what he actually said/meant.

Here are some quotes attributed to Bishop Galantino taken from the Huffington Post article (although various outlets have quoted them):

“Couples in irregular matrimonial situations are also Christians, but they are sometimes looked upon with prejudice,” said Bishop Nunzio Galantino, an apparent reference to divorced and remarried Catholics.

“The burden of exclusion from the sacraments is an unjustified price to pay, in addition to de facto discrimination,”

It's a little difficult to ascertain exactly what he means with all this. Is he saying that general exclusion of adulterers from Communion is wrong? Or, that they should be admitted because they feel excluded? Or that how Catholics within the Church see them is wrong? It's not very clear and different commentaries have placed different emphasis from the original Italian.

It seems from the context that "irregular matrimonial situations" is a reference to divorced and remmaried couples. If that is what is meant then the technical term is "adulterers" (Matt 19:9) so let's not fall in to the same trap we have done with abortion (termination of a pregnancy), practicing sodomites (those with a different sexual orientation) etc. and start rebranding sin with happy/inclusive terminology. Christ said it's adultery so let's use that term.

The most important point to make is that the Church doesn't exclude such people from the Eucharist but it is in fact they themselves through their own (free) choice who place themselves outside the Church. In fact, the Sacraments are as open to them as to anyone else. All they need to do is to go to Confession, make a sincere Confession with the firm idea of turning away from the sin of adultery (i.e. stop feigning a Christian marriage and normalise their relationship in line with Christ's teaching by either a) ending the relationship and moving out b) or if this is not possible then living together as if they were brother and sister). Once that is done they are welcome to the Eucharist. This is the same as anyone who has committed a mortal sin. Repent, Confess and you are welcomed to Communion. If they choose to continue living in a state of grave sin then sorry, they can't receive Communion but please don't blame others, or the Church, for the choice they themselves have made and the life that they have willingly entered in to.

"In his talk, Galantino, who is secretary-general of the Italian Bishops Conference, stressed that everyone should “feel at home” in the church, and especially at Mass — including migrants, the disabled, the poor and those in unconventional relationships."

It should be noted that only the "feel at home" part is a direct quote however if the rest is the true context then this all stinks of the modern nonsense that is "inclusivity". Whether the context in which the quotation is placed is accurate to what Bishop Galantino meant or not the first thing that should be clear to any Catholic is that it is wrong to place "those in unconventional relationship"  with "migrants, the disabled, the poor". These are often external situations beyond a person's control  unlike an "unconventional relationship" which is a choice. This is very similar to gay-"rights" activists who wish to place those against sodomy (a CHOICE) in the same bracket as those who discriminate based on ethnicity, nationality, disability etc. it's a deliberate ploy to downplay a sin and we should be on our guard against it.

Next, as far as I can tell "feeling at home" is not part of the Gospel message and indeed someone living in sin (be it adultery, fornication, drunkeness etc.) will indeed (and should!) feel uncomfortable at Mass as they enter in to the presence of Almighty God. The closer we come to God the more we feel His hand upon us, calling us to repent, to come closer to Him, to let Him love us, and yes at times this is "uncomfortable". If they feel uncomfortable due to how others treat them then this is more complicated. As Catholics we should welcome all those who come to Mass, and indeed a friendly demeanour can go a long way to helping people come in to the Church. Yes, we should treat adulterers with as much love as anyone else, but they are also living in and we shouldn't downplay that in order to be "kind" and "friendly". As I've said before in this blog:

Christ came to call people to repentence (Mark 1:15) not just accept and let people live in sin (which would be a total lack of charity).

We have a perfect example of how to treat adulterers from the Gospel: John 8:1-11. Verse 11 is the key text here: "...neither do I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go away, and from this moment sin no more."

As disciples of Christ we must do the same, we shouldn't condemn a person who is living in sin, but the message is one of repentence and the last line "and from this moment sin no more" is just as important and the "...neither do I condemn you" part. If a person in an "irregular matrimonial status" (i.e. committing adultery) seeks forgiveness then God (and the Church) will welcome them with open arms, but part of true repentence (read: metanoia) is that they must then seek to sin no more.

Anyone in that state should take heart that Jesus will be with them in leaving this sinful life behind and will give them all of the grace and strength of heart that they need to live as he wishes them to. He will not condemn them and they should know that God has already prepared a place for them (John 14:2). Take heart, be brave and follow Christ! You will find more peace and joy than anything this world can give (John 14:27).

(Quotes taken from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/bishop-nunzio-galantino_n_5730552.html)

Chesterton on why he is Catholic

Whilst not speaking about women's "ordination" I think this Chesterton quote on the Catholic Church is indeed applicable:

"It is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age"

This should also be a reminder to the "churchmen" coming out in favour of sodomy, assisted suicide, abortion, false equality, inclusiveness of those wishing to "forget doctrine let us simply join together" etc.

None of the above are wonderful new revelations from God that are just being discovered, they are simply the twisted things held as good by our decadent society which has long since turned it's back on Christ.

Female Priests? The CofE's decision to "ordain" women as "bishops"

Well the Church of England has (once again) distanced itself even more from the One True Faith by allowing women "Bishops". The result was greeted by some in a rather undignified manner with cheering, champagne drinking and even dramatic tears by several female members of the church.

I must say that most of the arguments, at least those that I heard, on the radio and TV by those in favour of the idea weren't based on the Bible, tradition or theology. Perhaps that's too much of an orthodox way of decisions being made? Instead appeals were made to vague terms which modern society loves such as "inclusivity", "equality" etc. all of which are also being used many of the same people to justify sodomy with the usual "Jesus was bound by his times, society has moved on" nonsense added on for effect.

All of this really begs the question as to why a church should be so obsessed with such nonsence as "inclusivity" and "being relevant to today's society"? Well the simple answer is that their quest to be inclusive, to fit in with what modern society calls "good", they've forgotten the Jesus of the Gospels and Tradition and prefer their own watered down, soft, inclusive, non-judging Jesus which conforms to the tastes of our neo-pagan society, which in turn doesn't care about Jesus either. To any Orthodox minded Christian it's clear that the CofE as an institution by wishing more and more to "appeal to the modern world" it is in fact making itself an even more irrelevant form of Christianity and rather than seeking to bring modern society to Christ it is instead subjective to it's wims.

So, what does the Catholic Church say about the possibility of female priests? Gladly, the matter has already been decided authoritatively by John Paul II who stated: "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful".

If you'd like to read the full declaration the text can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

So could there be any positives to be taken from this?

Well, of course. The state of the CofE should really be cause for Catholics to thank God for the objective authority that He gave His One True Church to decide such matters and this whole debacle has certainly re-affirmed my faith in the True Church.

It could also be a great opportunity (and we should pray for this) for many people to take advantage of the Ordinariate and come home to the Catholic Church. The following links may be useful for anyone reading reading this who is considering the Catholic Church:

http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/
http://chnetwork.org/media/journeyhome/

On a slightly different note, but still a positive one, this decision has surely hammered another nail the ecumenical movement's coffin and should highlight even more that the only way to true unity comes from conversion to the Catholic Faith; there simply is no other way. There is already unity within the Body of Christ and we need to bring people in to that and not water down the truth until it includes everyone already. As one Bishop said, "it's all fine saying we're all together, that we are one, but you'll only really know it when you start walking" [paraphrased]. For all the friendliness that comes through eccumenical relations it's clear that the CofE and the Catholic Church are not only miles apart but also walking in two different direction. Baring a miracle there is no hope of unity now as the CofE as an organisation chooses modern society over Truth, and in doing so drifts further and further from Christ.

Cardinal Arinze on Visions and Private Revelation

With so many alleged visions and apparitions taking place, often false, the following words of Cardinal Arinze should give us some perspective on how the Church (the rightful authority on such matters) goes about discerning whether an apparition is true or not:

"We should test reported appartions with such questions as the following: does it agree entirely with the revealed Catholic faith? Does it lead us to the centre of our faith where Holy Scripture is, where Tradition is, where the Pope and the Bishops are? Does it lead us to obey the Pope and the Bishops? If you say, "the private revelation told us not to mind the Pope and the Bishops..." that would tell you it is NOT from heaven. Therefore it is a mistake if a Christian makes a reported apparition the centre of their Christian life or a test of whether someone is a true Christian.

It is a negative sign when reported Christians follow alleged visionaries and seers, they feed daily on their writings and utterances but they won't read the Gospel, they won't read the Catechism,, they won't read the documents of the Pope but will read the documents of the visionaries. It is a very negative sign when somone ignores the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope all in the name of the vision or apparition. Christ told the Apostles, “anyone who hears you hears me, and anyone who rejects you rejects me and those who reject me reject the One who sent me”.

One person said to me, there is a reported apparition are you going on pilgrimage there? I said, “oh yeah, I go on pilgrimage. But you know where? To the chapel where we have the Blessed Sacrament. Where we are not guessing, where we are sure. That's my pilgrimage! I do not say don't go to Lourdes, Fatima or Jerusalem. But there are some other places where we don't know whether Our Lady was there or not. I do not go to these places."

Wise words.

The Gospel of Elton John - Jesus - Gay Marriage

So Elton John (a man very much in need of our prayers) has once again spoken about Jesus and "gay marriage" and once again shown his total ignorance of Scripture.

Let's analyse his comments:

"The new Pope has excited me so much by his humanity," John said. "He's stripped it down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love and taking everybody in, inclusiveness."

Well, I won't get in to whether this Pope has preached the true Gospel to it's fullness with regards to sodomy - whilst I don't think he has Elton has clearly twisted the Pope to seem like a modern liberal, something he is certainly not.

Let's look at the second part. Was Jesus about taking everybody in? Well, yes and no. He certainly calls everyone to His Kingdom but the way Elton John speaks is as if he simply accepted all with no conditions and this is false. Remember John chapter 8, the woman who was "caught in the act of adultery?" Yes, he condemned those who wished to condem her but then told her "Go away, and from this moment sin no more". This is not the inclusiveness that Elton believes in where all are simply accepted for who they are and no matter what they do. The love that Christ shows us is not an inclusive love but a call to repentence (Mark 1:15) and to follow God's commandments: with the adulterous woman see the sixth commandment.

"He was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together, and that is what the church should be about"

Matthew 10:34 would suggest otherwise: 'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword".

Again as stated before. Christ is NOT about simply bringing people together - this is a principle of humanism which is condemned - but about calling people to holiness, calling them to turn from the flesh to a life guided by the Holy Spiriy and to take up their cross and follow Him. Elton John has no concern for any of these but simply wishes to promote his own sodomite agenda by cherry picking phrases he thinks fit his ideas.

Now for the most ridiculous comments:

"We live in a different time. If Jesus Christ was alive today, I cannot see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen"

"He was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together, and that is what the church should be about."

Wow. Now alarm bells should be ringing for any right minded Christian after reading this. He is using a very subtle but dangerous ploy which can be found all over the modern neo-pagan media. He took a true statement "He [Jesus] was all about love and compassion and forgiveness" and then twists it to mean what he wants.

So let's analyse his comments. "We live in a different time". This seems to suggest that Christ's teaching are mutable and changing. Hebrews 13:8 should be enough to refute this: "Jesus Christ is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be for ever". It should also be noted that Christ is GOD MADE MAN. He was not bound by the times, and all of his actions were chosen not accidental so to suggest that Christ would conform to our modern society is simply false.

"If Jesus Christ was alive today, I cannot see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen" [speaking about allowing gay clergy to marry]

Well, luckily for us Christians the faith is not a personal one in the sense of interpretation and whatever Elton thinks is really irrelevant as we have Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium to guide us and not the personal views of this man.

As I've already shown Christ's teaching according to Scripture are not bound by time and circumstances. However, the big problem is that Elton seems to have fallen in to the modern fallacy that Christ never spoke about gay marriage. Well, actually he did and did so very clearly. Christians should memorise this verse to fight the perversion of the "inclusive gay Christ" that we hear of so often. The following verses completely refute the idea that Christ "would have supported gay marriage":

Matthew 19.
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, 'Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?'
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.'

Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female".

So you see, Christ did speak specifically about marriage (and divorce incidently) and defined it precisely as being between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27) as "from the beginning" they were made "male and female". How much more clear could he possibly be?!

Interestingly, Christ goes back and teaches us to follow how it was from the beginning also showing us that we shouldn't bow to what society believes is right at any given time - especially a godless one such as ours.

For you see, Elton John's kind of "love" is one where everything is tolerated. One where sins of the flesh are fine as long as everyone is "nice" and "tolerating", where sin doesn't really exist and the only sin is "intolerance". You see, Elton does not really care about Christ, he doesn't care about finding the true Gospel, about seeking out the truth but only about his own self interest and looking to justify his own sodomite behaviour - or to put it another way: making god in his own image.

The problem is that Elton's doctrines are all based around the word "love". Love, without a true Catholic definition, is simply a word that can be twisted to justify all kinds of evils; Abortion (the killing of a child) is a "loving" act; Euthanasia is the "loving" thing to do; Divorce and remarriage is the "loving" thing to do. To truly love is to follow God's commandments and we must cling fast to them with a spirit of prayer if we aren't to be corrupted by this evil society where views like Elton's are praised and accepted.

I will leave you with two further quotes, both which I'm sure Elton would rather taken out of the Bible altogether:

1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitute, nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God

Romans 1
26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:
27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

First and Sixth Commandment: True Motivation

I recently listened to a talk from a traditional Catholic priest on exorcism and possession. Of course he spoke about cases that he had dealt with including screaming children, possessed individuals, cases of obsession etc. all of which appeals to our morbid curiosity. It was however a comment he made when speaking about the sixth commandment [Thou shalt not commit adultery] which caught my attention and has stayed with me and given me much to reflect on in prayer.

He got on to the topic by stating that almost inevitably those who lose their faith or are simply far from God are almost inevitably involved in some activity (either personal or with others) that breaks the sixth commandments. He then said how to truly fulfil the commandment not to commit adultery, and this is the interesting part, one mustn't simply stop breaking the sixth commandment but must first stop breaking the first commandment [You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind].

It is impossible to live a pure life without God's grace and it is through placing God first that we break all ties with other sins and begin to "put on the New Man" that St. Paul speaks about in the fourth chapter of his letter to the Ephesians.

Also of note he also said that nowadays many people turn from sins against the sixth commandment (although it applies to all sins) not because they truly love God above all things - first commandment - but simply because they are sick and tired of the consequences of a particular sin.

Food for thought with regards to our motivations.

Jews, Christians and Muslims - praying to the same God?

I would like to share a recent conversation that I had with a good friend of mine who stated on his Facebook that "Jews, Christians and Muslims, praying to the same and only God but in different ways". My responses are in red.

My initial response was this:

But we should also remember that Judaism is a false religion which rejects the new and eternal covenant and Islam is a heresy (Arian - diabolic?) which was founded by a man who "seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure" (Thomas Aquinas speaking) and which seeks to, and indeed does!, lead others away from the true and living Trinitarian God.

It should also be noted that even if one accepts that Jews, Christians and Arabs pray to the "same God" (I think this is debatable) that does not mean that the different ways of praying are comparable in any way. Jews and Muslims give false worship to God and reject the true worship found in Christ's sacrifice re-presented at each Mass.

His response was:

I just wanted to say that there is only One and Almighty God. In other words, even though we pray different (doctrine, rites,...) we focus in the same big and supreme God. Buscar lo que nos une y no lo que nos diferencia! (Translation: Look for what unites us not what differentiates us!)

I took issue with this and my response was the following:

I'm sorry but this is going to be a long post as I have to disagree completely with your post. The way to true unity is through the conversion of the Muslims to the One True Faith. Any other unity is false and leaving them in their error is an evil act towards that person whose only hope for salvation is in Christ. I don't know what you mean exactly by your last sentence [Buscar lo que nos une y no los que nos diferencia!] but if it is hinting that all religions are essentially the same and we should discard "problematic" issues looking for unity and what unites us instead, well this is a free-mason idea and is very much condemned by the Church.

I understand what you are saying with we have different doctrines, rites etc. but in fact these are essential in our lives and the salvation of souls which is our goal as Catholics.

Do Muslims believe in one god? Yes they do, but it is only a natural faith and not a supernatural one which brings forth life and is completely different to Christian faith in God. Even though they believe there is one god they have not accepted the reality of that one God through the revelation of Jesus Christ without which they cannot be saved. Belief in one God doesn't unite us when the two beliefs (Trinity vs the Muslim "god") are so opposed and completely contrary.

Muslims reject Christ, they reject Him as the only way to heaven and instead trust that their own works will take them to heaven. This attitude will not lead them to heaven. They reject salvation through grace, they reject Christ as the only means to salvation, they deny his crucifixion (the ultimate act of God's love) with such twisted logic that it can only be of demonic origin. They deny the resurrection of our Lord, deny Baptism which now saves us, deny the Eucharist which unites us to Christ and through which true worship is offered etc. these are not small differences that can be brushed aside, these are key tenets required for salvation something which is unattainable through following Islam and it's tenets!

And this isn't even going in to the details of daily living inspired by the Qu'ran where multiple wives are allowed, abortion is permitted, lying is permitted under certain circumstances, contraception is approved of etc. these are all grave evils promoted by an evil pagan book. The "god" that Muslims follow and adore is not the true God revealed in Christ and there is no salvation found in Islam.

As the Church has constantly taught Islam is an evil heresy that seeks to draw people away from the only means of salvation and we should seek to convert the Muslims not seek false unity with them based on human concerns (i.e. peace, friendliness, brotherhood at any cost etc.).

We must be on our guard against the Christianisation of Islam. The religions are in no way comparable and Islam is something that must be fought not embraced and accepted.

God bless,
Paul

Corpus Christi and My Conversion

Corpus Cristi is one of the great feasts of the Church but for me it holds a special personal significance as it was this topic which lead me to the knowledge that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

According to Wikipedia: The Feast of Corpus Christi (Latin for Body of Christ), also known as Corpus Domini, is a Latin Rite liturgical solemnity celebrating the tradition and belief in the body and blood of Jesus Christ and his Real Presence in the Eucharist. It emphasizes the joy of the institution of the Eucharist, which was observed on Holy Thursday in the somber atmosphere of the nearness of Good Friday.

I was received in to the Catholic Church as an adult May 24, 2009 and a big part of my conversion story was being convinced intellectually that the Eucharist is not a symbolic memorial but truly the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

After coming to belief in God and the Christian faith I began looking for the true church of Christ one with authority to teach in His name. One of the central issues that drew my attention was precisely the Eucharist. Is it truly the Body and Blood of Christ or not? What focus on this? Well, apart from being a clear difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant communities it is also one of those clear black and white issues about which there can be no middle ground and it can't be left up to the individual to decide either. It either is the Body and Blood of  Christ, or it is not. Of course this question slowly brought me on to the question of authority in the Church which only the Catholic Church can hold any reasonable claim to. Curiously enough the process of reading the Bible and the Early Church also brought me to the belief that Apostolic Authority which was passed down through the laying on of hands through the Bishops was also a Christian truth which couldn't be denied, but that is for another post.

Back to the Eucharist. After much reading and listening I slowly came to the conclusion that Christ was not speaking metaphorically when [26] ...Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Scripture

Part of coming to knowledge of the truth came from reading the Bible. There are many passages than speak about the true presence of Christ such as "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16) and "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29) - if it were merely bread and wine how could someone eat and drink judgement on themselves by consuming it?

However, the most powerful passages that I read which give witness to the Eucharist being the True Body and Blood of Christ are found in John 6.

[51 ]I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52 ]If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

As you can see in John 6:51, Jesus identifies himself with the miraculous bread and then says that if any man eats of this bread they will live forever. Was he speaking metaphorically? Well, the Jews looking at their response in John 6:53 obviously took him literally. What was Jesus' reaction to them taking him as speaking literally? The answer is found in the next verse:

[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Jesus, rather than correct their error about as he does for example when speaking about the "yeast of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6) instead goes on to insist on the eating His body and blood even more.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

He then re-affirms it and continues to do so in very explicit language.

[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

If he was just speaking of symbolically eating his flesh as eating and drinking his cup, or accepting Him would this have been so scandalous? It's clear Jesus is saying something very shocking here. And now comes the shocking bit that I remember reading:

[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

In verse 67 many of his disciples left him. This is the only place in the Bible where Jesus' disciples abandon him over something he taught. We know from verse 53 (The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?) that they took him at his word and he lets them walk away. Even more shocking is that he then turns to his disciples and asks if they will leave as well.

Reading this it was obvious that Jesus really couldn't have been speaking figuratively and if he were then surely he would have corrected those that misinterpreted him and left? His silence is almost as powerful as his words.

Early Church

The other thing that convinced me that the Catholic Church was right on the Eucharist was the writings of the Early Church. Indeed, it was these that truly led me to the Church on an array of topics; apostolic authority, importance of the liturgy, obedience to the Bishops etc. Whilst researching online I remember reading many protestants who claimed that their "reformation" was not based on new doctrines but was a renewal of the church to how it was in the first centuries. That sounds quite nice. However, it struck me as strange reading and listening to debates that it was in fact only the Catholic apologists who seemed to quote from writers in the early Church. Well, what better way to see what faith the Apostles handed on than by reading the writings directly? I started reading the Church Fathers looking to see whether the early Christians believed in the real presence and to my surprise it is so unanimously taught and believed that even some Protestant scholars that reject the real presence do indeed admit that the early Christians professed it.

I will just include one quote here that I found incredibly powerful and further below is a link to a large selection of further quotes from the first centuries of the Church which confirm that the real presence was not only taught but was unanimously taught.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again". (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

The following link shows many quotations from the Early Church fathers:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

Personality Cult and the Papacy

Apologies for this messy post, it is an almagamation of a few posts which I had lined up but I think the idea comes across.

What is a personality cult? The wikipedia definition is:

"A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propoganda or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and, at times god-like public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise".

How could this apply to the Pope? Quite easily in fact, especially since he is a very public figure that is attracting a lot of media attention. The "god-like" image as referred to in the quote and this becomes particularly problematic when one uses a public Catholic figure as the means to evangelize. What are the problems exactly? That we become obsessed with this man´s perceived holiness and humility. This, "look at how holy our Pope is" mentality can potentially lead to a problem of reducing the Gospel down to how one man lives it out however I believe that the bigger problem from this is that we place the Pope on a pedastall and fail to look at his actions objectively, believing that by doing do we will be harming the Church in some way, when in fact to defend the Orthodox is to love Christ and Church.

As said, I believe the deeper problem of the cult of Francis arises when a lack of objectivity makes us accept unquestioningly all that Pope Francis says and does as if he has a completely free reign over all the Church which is not the case and shouldn't be the case.

We should remember that even Pope Francis is not above criticism. Indeed, if a Pope strays from the Orthodox, makes questionable statements or commits liturgical abuses, it is in fact our duty to question and criticise these actions. Has the Pope said good things? Undoubtedly do. However, he has also said many things which could rightly be criticised or at least questioned. Examples include his attitude of seeming wish not to offend anyone except traditional Catholics - insulting the traditional Catholic practice of offering rosaries, calling the TLM a "fashion", the on-going Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate scandal which is deepening; placing a beach ball on the altar; calling a protestant minister "brother bishop"; his often vague and imprecise language (something he was famous for in his native Argentina before becoming Pope) with regards to various issues which has created much confusion - leading Catholic apologists to have to "explain" something he has said almost weekly it seems; his seeming support of Cardinal Kasper with his "deep" and "serene" theology despite seemingly wishing to throw the Church in to schism...the list goes on and on...

How should we address this attitude?

Well, first of all we should remember that we are not OF Pope Francis, just as was warned not to be of Peter or Paul, but of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is important to remind ourselves that the power of the Papal office does not come from the individual but rather from the Christ given office itself. We owe obedience to the Pope but that doesn't mean we must hang off his every word, or even agree with all of his actions. 

We need to read and inform ourselves intellectually through traditional sources especially through reading material written before Vatican II - encyclicals by Pius X, XI, XII, Gregory XVI are highly recommended if you wish to see what true Orthodoxy sounds like. Let's not idolise this man. Pope Francis should be judged by Tradition not Tradition and practices by Pope Francis. We should be especially careful not to follow, or get carried away by, any supposed "who am I to judge?" false mercy and also be wary of "militant humility". Or to believe that we are somehow seeing the re-birth of a new glorious age of the Church as led by Francis (the pew statistics show that the "Francis Effect" is simply non-existent.

We should also remember that those who criticise the Pope generally do not do so out of hatred of the man but out of love for Christ and His Church. They wish to defend the Orthodox knowing that by doing do they help to save souls.

Unfortunately, Pope Francis isn´t the only place we see this in the Catholic Church but this can also be seen in the near fanatical obsession with some apparitions that we see in some sections of the Church where followers of certain "visionaries" hang on their words almost dogmatically, believing everything they hear from them, basing their whole spiritual lives around these "visions" which often leads them in to error and sometimes in direct contradiction to the Church. Why? Because they have fallen in to the personality cult and latch on to it as if it were Christ himself...

My Conclusion - As Catholics we must not become obsessed with trying to prove the holiness of Pope Francis or become obsessed with this one man at all, or where he wishes to take us - the Church is much bigger than him. One day, like all of us, he will die too and the Church will continue and so will the Papal Office. Certainly, there are holy people and we should give thanks for them where appropriate, but we can´t become obsessed with them.


We must avoid that attitude that makes the Pope (or Cardinals, Priests anyone in fact) above criticism. Questioning the Pope's dubious words or actions does not makes us less Catholic and in fact if done prudently and for love of Christ and His Church it actually makes us far more Catholic than someone who hangs on his every word or whim, casting aside true Catholic teaching to follow one man's ideas.

Pope Francis - Confession

Pope Francis has just spoken about confession in a very beautiful way:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-be-courageous-go-to-confession/

It's definitely worth a read, and we should all take his advice and go to confession over the next few weeks, it truly is a wonderful Sacrament.

I will however suggest one way for him to actually make a practical change in the Vatican at least regarding confession - have all day Confessions! I visited Rome last year and went to make a confession of my sins around lunchtime but was told that I would have to come back later as there were no priests available. No priests available for confession in the home of western Christianity? I then tried two other local churches, no confessions either. I also tried a religious community next to the Vatican and was turned away. I understand that one priest probably can't stay in the confessional all day due to other responsibilities (perhaps Padre Pio and John Vianney would disagree) but surely in the Basilica of St. Peter there should at least be some priests available throughout the whole day?

This isn't the only time this has happened. I had the same experience in Lourdes this autumn. I went to the building where confessions are heard and saw that it was also closed around lunch-time. I went back much later in the afternoon and was able to confess in Spanish, no English speaking priests available at that time. Again, in one of the great places of Catholic pilgrimage how could they not have a priest for confession the whole day? I can't see there being any practical reasons why there shouldn't be as I've had the pleasure of being able to visit Fatima three times and there was always at least one priest hearing confessions, usually at least two or three in fact.

Of course, in Rome, Lourdes and Fatima there are always visiting priests looking around that one could ask for confession should one have an urgent need for it. However, the lack of confessors in the Vatican only highlights the sad state of affairs in normal parishes with regard to this Sacrament. In England at least there are limited times for confession in most churches, with a few notable exceptions, and in my own parish there is now just thirty minutes a week for confessions on a Saturday morning. If you can't go then your only option is to travel across the city or ask for it by special request if the priest is around.

The whole foundation of Christian life is realising that one is a sinner and seeking God's forgiveness. With this in mind perhaps Francis could consider having all day confessions in St. Peters and then perhaps encourage local parishes to open up the confessional and also preach about it on Sundays. Indeed, why not have confession before Mass on Sunday if it's not available already? The fact that it's almost pushed to the side of the timetable gives the appearance that it's obviously not that important.

I've experience the fruits of the Sacrament of Confession in my own life and were it made more available to the faithful I'm sure the fruits would be enormous for the Church as a whole.