• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    john on Ask a Priest
    Sarah on Ask a Priest
    Aidan on Ask a Priest
    "Alyssa on Ask a Priest
    mike shannon on MARY OUR MOTHER

Questions & Answers About the Church

What is the Church?

Put simply, the Church is a community of faith founded by Christ which celebrates and makes known her Lord through his teachings and sacraments. This Church is composed of the clergy, laity and consecrated religious.

Does the Bible speak of the Church?

Yes, it does, a fact that is quite disturbing to those who disavow any significant role for her and who reduce Christian faith to a personal experience with occasional Christian fellowship. Jesus said: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). St. Paul also speaks about “the church of the living God” (Timothy 3:15). In Hebrews 12:23, he calls her the Church or “the assembly of the first-born.” Revealing something of the intimacy between Christ and his people, St. Paul says in Ephesians 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Jesus compares the Church to a flock of sheep: “So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).

Does the Bible say anything about Christ founding a Church?

Our Lord chose twelve apostles and commanded that they teach and insure that believers observe all that he had given them. Christ, himself, admits to his own authority, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18) and extends it to his apostles, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21). Christ appointed a visible headship or ultimate leadership among his apostles in Peter: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). This “rock” signifies that Peter should be the foundation stone and chief shepherd of the Church. Christ told him “Feed my sheep . . . Tend my lambs . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). In other words, he was to lead the apostles and teach the People of God. He was to minister to them and insure the efficacy of the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist.

When did this Church really begin?

The Acts of the Apostles chronicles how the apostles were empowered and began to exercise their mission on Pentecost. The Church expanded and prospered. Bishops were appointed to assist and to be the successors to the apostles. This living legacy extends all the way to today.

Can the origin of the Church and its apostolic succession be proven?

Sure, history and Church documents themselves are evidence of Church leadership and activity throughout the ages. Significant are the lists of succession, especially that of the Pope which extends back to Christ and his appointment of Peter. There has also been a successive series of Church fathers and doctors who have explained and defended the faith in every century. We might point further to the Church councils, which have corrected and maintained teaching and discipline against error so as to be faithful to Christ.

Can we really be sure from biblical testimony that Christ gave Peter a special supremacy and power?

Christ asserted that Peter was the rock or foundation stone of his Church. He tells him to feed his flock, to teach and minister to clergy and laity alike. He makes no qualm in saying, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).Yes, the singular role of Peter is pretty clear.

Does the Bible assert that Peter was the chief apostle and that he exercised supremacy over them?

St. Peter personally presided over the election of Matthias. He was the first to address the crowd after the descent of the Holy Spirit. At the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem he took it upon himself to speak in the name of all the apostles. He presided in Jerusalem over the first Church council (Acts 15). He resolved disputed matters (Acts 15:7). St. Paul consulted Peter about certain practices. Indeed, early Christian history tells us that after Christ, Peter was considered the head and chief teacher of faith.

Can it be proven that the Catholic Church is the true Church?

Christ established the Catholic Church almost two thousand years ago. Her Christian teachings have remained consistent against the fads and fashions of time. Her saints have written our Church history in lives of holiness and sometimes even of martyrdom. She has spread throughout the world to the many nations of the earth. She has not deleted or compromised the teachings of Christ. She has an unbroken succession of leadership (that can be chronicled) going back to Jesus. The Catholic Church alone has weathered all the storms of dissension, schisms, paganism, and persecution.

How can it be said that no other denomination is the true Church?

Except for the special position of the Orthodox churches and their relationship, albeit fractured, with the Catholic Church, all other Christian denominations emerge from the personal opinions of certain men. These figures alter, add, and delete from the deposit of faith according to their own whim and private notions. Non-Catholic churches [properly called ecclesial communities] disagree with one another and only possess fragments of Christ’s teaching, not the whole truth. All saving truth “subsists” in the Catholic Church. These other ecclesial communities extend back a few centuries or merely a couple years, not two millennia like the Catholic faith. These denominations exist only locally or in a few countries and are not worldwide. Having not formed under the watchful eye and guidance of the apostles, non-Catholic Bible-Christians frequently and ultimately explain the Scriptures in ways to suit human opinion.

Does the Bible actually say that we should submit our opinion to the Church?

We read St. Paul in Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” Jesus said to the apostles: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). “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). Thus it is that we should hear the Church and submit our opinions to her.

But blind submission violates the freedom of human inquiry and thinking, does it not?

This submission is not blind. We are obliged, to the best of our ability, to study the reasons and background for Catholic teachings. But, should we encounter “mystery” and we will, then we should render a religious assent to the views of the Church, which received the command from Christ to teach and to explain the truth.

Does not everyone have a right to his or her own opinion?

Yes, but only so long as the facts admit to differing opinions. But if truth should be made manifest or decided by a competent authority (like the Church), then we must submit. Children have opinions; would we say that they are always mature and correct? The insane have views too, would we consider all truth relative so as to give them credence? No, of course we would not.

Could not Christ have made things a lot easier for us, just by spelling out his doctrines so that no confusion might develop?

Christ did provide for the eventuality of misunderstanding. He gave us a certain and infallible teacher for his doctrines. In cases of uncertainty, we have a means of discerning the truth. He principally gave this infallibility to Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and to his successors.

But, is not the Bible an infallible teacher?

No, because many texts require explanation. There are some Scriptures difficult to understand. The multiplicity of denominations in this nation alone is proof that the Bible is no infallible teacher.

Does the Bible really say that St. Peter has infallible teaching authority?

Christ said to St. Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31). In Matt. 16:17-19, Jesus said to Peter: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This proves that Peter was empowered by Jesus Christ so that his faith would not falter and that he should insure and strengthen the faith of his brothers. Christ confided his Church to Peter as on a rock that will never be disturbed by false teachings or by the gates of hell. Christ said to Peter: “Tend my lambs . . . feed my sheep,” (John 21:15), which means to teach and care for the whole Church. If Peter was charged to teach the whole Church, then Christ had to insure that he would be able to teach without error. Otherwise, no one could be required to believe what he taught. Except for some window dressing and the development of our appreciation of doctrine, the Church has taught the same unchanging doctrine for two thousand years.

But if Peter swore that he did not know Christ, how could he be infallible?

This question emerges from a common misunderstanding between “infallibility” and “impeccability”. While St. Peter was infallible in teaching matters of faith and morals, he was not free from sin. Further, when Peter denied Christ, he had not received the Holy Spirit who would preserve him free from error in teaching the Church. Christ had yet to give him full and empowered charge of his flock.

What does “ex cathedra” teaching mean?

It is a technical term, which means literally from the chair; it signifies when the Pope speaks from his role, as the universal teacher, some matter of faith and morals which must be accepted throughout the world. He puts the full weight of the seat of Peter behind it. His private conversations and such are not infallible.

Does such a view of infallibility create an atmosphere for ignorance, making people passive in investigating the truth?

No, quite to the contrary, infallibility insures that we do not follow any false leads. The truth is studied on a firm foundation and in the light; those who have no such guide search for the truth in the dark. The fragmentation of Protestantism is evidence of this latter route.

But wait a minute; is not the teaching regarding infallibility of recent origin?

It was formally defined toward the end of the 19th century as a necessary retort to a world that was increasingly secular and dismissive of the role of the Church. However, even before it became a declared article of faith, the Popes were always infallible. Papal infallibility is not a new doctrine; rather, it is an ancient perpetual truth given a clearer definition.

But some Popes were terrible public sinners; does this not invalidate this business?

No, just as with Peter, infallibility does not mean an exemption from sin.

Could it be that Peter was infallible, but no Popes after him?

The guarantee from Jesus was that he would remain with his Church until the end of the world. Thus, the infallibility of Peter must endure as long as the Church exists and the teachings of Jesus have need of preservation from error. Anything less would be unjust. Every generation has a right to the truth. Remember, Christ promised he would send to his Church the Spirit of truth which would abide with her forever (John 14).

At the time of the reformation, about the year 1500, did not the Catholic Church fall into idolatry and superstitious practices?

No, her beliefs have remained essentially the same throughout all history, going back to the apostles and the first Christians. These charges are the result of bigotry and misunderstanding.

Were there not many abuses in the Catholic Church at the time of the reformation?

The Church is holy because Christ is holy. However, many individual members of every “church” may be guilty of sinfulness and abuses. The Church has never formally approved of religious abuses and has legislated “Church” penalties, including excommunication, to discourage such activities.

Is it correct to assume that Protestant denominations possess the same faith and teachings as the first Christians?

No, this would be a false presumption. Many cases of deviation can be documented, not to mention their breach with the Catholic Church. While the first Christians acknowledged baptism as necessary for salvation, many of these “new” churches dismiss its importance. Ancient believers also believed in the Church’s jurisdiction over the sacrament of penance and the value of confession to a priest; all the Protestant sects renounce this mystery of mercy. The early Christians made the Eucharist the center of their lives, trusting that in Holy Communion they received the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. Most Protestant sects denounce the real presence, spiritualize it, or reduce it entirely to ordinary bread. Early Christians also inherited from the Jews of Christ’s day the practice of praying for the dead; this also, the non-Catholic denominations have discarded.

What is so serious about a denomination changing or modernizing its tenets of faith?

Implicit in such an activity is the assumption that the previous tenets were incomplete or erroneous. Both cannot be right. The true teachings of Christ and the apostolic Church, the very matters of faith required for salvation, cannot be reversed or altered. Attempts to do so sever the connection between believers and the true Church of Christ. Of course, issues of discipline can be revised according to changing circumstances. Further, the many languages of men and the various societies in which the Church finds herself may also dictate reformulation in the expressions of changeless doctrinal truths. It could also be said that the full meaning and ramifications of certain teachings develop or are only realized over time.

Does the Catholic Church fabricate new articles of faith?

No, she does not have the authority to create new teachings. Rather, she sometimes defines matters of faith that have existed in the Church from the very beginning. As for discipline, she can create or revoke laws according to changing circumstances.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

3 Responses

  1. I know very littlle about the Eastern Rite Catholic churches. What role, if any, do the Eastern Rite Catholics play in the selection of the Pope? Are there Eastern Rite Catholic Cardinals? Do they participapte in conclave?

    Are there Eastern Rite Archbishops, or is an Eastern Rite Patriarch equivalent to Archbishop in the Roman Rite?

    Lastly, where can I go to learn more about the Eastern Rite Catholiic Churches?

    FATHER JOE: I am no authority on the Eastern rites. There are cardinals in their ranks. The scope of a Patriarch is wider than an Archbishop but their actual authority varies. The Pope is referred to as the Patriarch of the Western Church. However, the Pope also embraces authority over the universal Church. There has been some tension lately with Eastern Catholic Churches between the office of Patriarch and that of Cardinal. Some Eastern bishops want a revision of the curial government. There are sites for the various Eastern rites of the Church online.

  2. If a fellow Catholic criticizes the costly clothes the pope wears, Is it permissible to call him “Judas?”

    FATHER JOE: Everything costs… but an opinion about clothes is probably a small matter. Outright rejection of the Pope by a member of the Church would be far more serious.

  3. Catholics who are impressed with their apologists need to start reading the source of truth, and stop resting their faith on these men.

    FATHER JOE: Catholics have excellent bible translations and commentaries. We do not trust in apologists but in the Lord who promised to preserve the Church in the truth. If it were not for the Church which assembled, preserved and translated the sacred books, you would have no Bible. We do not come to God alone. Stop resting your faith upon yourself, or pretending to do so, and receive the true light of faith.

    Carl assumes much.

    FATHER JOE: Who is Carl? Are you spamming me with recycled comments from another site? Shame on you!

    Scripture gives no indication at all that Peter was supreme over the other apostles.

    FATHER JOE: Did you read this post at all? There is plenty of evidence and such is confirmed by the legacy of history. The schismatic Eastern churches even admit that the See of Peter has a priority of place, even if there has been disagreement about the extension or mechanics of this authority.

    The Bible, to the contrary, indicates that none of the apostles enjoyed any authority at all over the others. Just read Luke 22:24-30, and you’ll see the argument they had just before Christ’s crucifixion. They didn’t feel at all that Peter had a supreme hand. Why not? How is it that Catholics today know for sure that Peter was supreme, but the apostles at that time did not?

    FATHER JOE: But the apostles did respect Peter’s authority. His place among them is restored and healed by the resurrected Christ when he asked Peter three times if he loved him. In response, he is told to feed and care for Christ’s sheep. All the apostles had a degree of authority; but Peter was the chief shepherd. The passage in Luke has Jesus rebuke their rivalry and a false notion of authority in the Church. Jesus says, “Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant” (Luke 22:26). One of the most ancient titles for the Popes is THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD.

    There is no epistle in the NT where we see Peter called “pope”, and no mention of any papacy at all.

    FATHER JOE: Certain terms develop over time to sumarize elements of the deposit of faith and revelation. The word “pope” is a development of the word for father. The Pope is our “papa” or Holy Father. Fundamentalists often play English word games, rejecting such terms as “Pope” and “Trinity.” It is really a deceptive shell-game they are playing.

    We find instead group effort from all at an equal level. We find no admonishment from Peter instructing that anyone should follow any successor in Rome.

    FATHER JOE: You must be missing some pages in your Bible. Peter might have tried to run away from his responsibility, but it was given him all the same. John recognizes this authority at the empty tomb. Although he got there first, he waited for Peter and allowed him to go in first. Peter would travel to Rome and suffer martyrdom there. The head of the Roman empire would become the primatial see for the Church.

    Paul affirms in 2 Corinthians 12:11 that he is not inferior to any of the others. Why did he not acknowledge the papacy at the time of his writing this astonishing rebuttal of the Catholic doctrine of Peter’s supremacy?

    FATHER JOE: Paul is not claiming for himself any headship over the universal Church; rather, he is arguing that while not among the original number, he is still an authentic apostle. That is all he is saying. The bishops of the Church could say the same, today. They all have apostolic authority but there is still only one Pope, the successor to Peter. At the Council of Jerusalem, Paul was quite persuasive and when Peter affirmed Paul’s testimony about the Holy Spirit’s movement among the Gentiles, the argument about circumcision was over.

    Peter is not prominent in the first 12 chapters of the Book of Acts – Paul is. Paul does not acknowledge any papacy at all in any of these writings.

    FATHER JOE: The Scriptures also do not give us a lot of information about the mechanics of Church operations. Acts stresses the missionary outreach of the Church. Paul was chiefly successful in this, particularly among the Gentiles. We cannot infer anything negative about Peter’s authority in this. The words of Jesus to Peter do not forfeit their power.

    It is clear that Peter was not infallible. Paul opposed some of his teachings. His mistakes were in matters of faith, analogous to teachings ex cathedra of today’s popes.

    FATHER JOE: Obviously, you do not understand the teaching about infallibility. It would not include private opinions or even deliberation or debate. However, when formal proclamations are made “from the chair” for the universal Church on matters of faith and morals, the Holy Spirit preserves Peter (the Pope/Church) from error.

    On top of this we find that the Bible claims for itself infallibility, while it’s clear that the Roman Catholic Church fails.

    FATHER JOE: The Scriptures are indeed revelation truth; but the Bible is not self-interpreting. The Church’s steadfast testimony to the truth, both in and out of season, is indeed miraculous.

    Consider the Galileo incident, or the fact that Pope Honorius I, was condemned for teaching heresy by the Sixth General Council?

    FATHER JOE: Theories about the solar system are not matters of faith and morals. Galileo tried to prove his theories using Scripture and in a book that belittled the Pope. Others had claimed similar ideas with little or no challenge from the Church. Too much is made of Galileo. As for Honorius, the judgment of the Third Council of Constantinople was never ratified by the Holy See. The old Pope, under tremendous pressure, inadvertantly used “one will” language about Christ while intending to express an orthodox understanding: that there is no inner conflict between the human and divine will of Christ. His successor, Pope John IV in 640 clarified such about the prior Pope. Would you even understand the homoousios/homoiousios debate? I doubt it.

    It is clear that Peter was not qualified to have the church “built upon him.” Only Christ is qualified for such a thing.

    FATHER JOE: You miss the whole point, Christ uses weak instruments to fulfill his mission. Peter is THE ROCK, not because he is special but because God can do all things. We are all sinners. We are not even qualified for salvation. Everything is a gift!

    I’d like to add this commentary from the Dake’s study Bible(NT pg 536): According to Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” which quotes 260 sources, the ancient Babylonian cult, started by Nimrod and his queen Semiramis spread among all nations. The objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven and her son. The cult claimed the highest wisdom and the most divine secrets. Besides confessions to priests there were many mysterious rites. Julius Caesar became head of the Roman branch of the Babylonian Cult in 63 BC Other emperors held the office until 376 AD when the emperor Gratian, for Christian reasons refused it because he was that Babylonianism was idolatrous. Demasus, bishop of the Christian church at Rome was elected to the headship in 378 AD and from here on Babylonianism and organized Christianity became one. The rites of Babylon were soon introduced into the Christian church. Heathen temples were restored, beautified, and their rituals encouraged. Worship and veneration of images, saints, relica, private confessions, penances, scourgings, pilgrimages, sign of the cross Christmas, Lady Day, Easter, Lent and other pagan rites and festivals, little by little, became a part of christian worship.

    FATHER JOE: First, beware of the DAKE BIBLE, you are trusting in the words and views of Finis Jennings Dake. If he is your authority, then you are the one trusting in men. The Dake Bible is filled with heresies, even rejected by most Protestant groups. His view of Christ is regarded as the heresy of adoptionism. I take it that you are a Pentecostal? Second, Hislop’s THE TWO BABYLONS is a classic anti-Catholic work fueled more by hatred of Catholics than by any legitimate academic research. I would not trust in that either. Third, it was not the Church that was corrupted or hellenized; but rather, Christianity transformed and Christianized the pagan world. That which could be given new meaning was retained, all else was discarded. What you oppose is not paganism, but authentic Christianity. If you are a follower of Dake, then you are lost in a cult religion. Come to the true Church, come to Catholic Christianity!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: