One Fold
One Shepherd; One Truth!
Truth: The Alternative to Sacred Tradition
Jan 22nd
One of the primary goals of Catholic apologetics is to convince people that the modern Roman Catholic Church is no different than the post apostolic church of the first few centuries. This claim is put forth in no uncertain terms by the purveyor of the website, staycatholic.com. In his introduction to his essays on the website, the author made the following claim:
“I also refer to the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I do so in order to show that those who were taught by the Apostles believed and interpreted the Scriptures in the same way that the Catholic Church does today.” (Sebastian R. Fama, staycatholic.com/about_the_essays.htm)
In his essay on tradition, the author claims that what Catholics call Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the early Church. He also stated that if traditions cannot be traced back to the early Church they would have to be man-made. So to put his standard for legitimate tradition to the test, I would like to take the two early church examples he used in his essay to prove that the author is mistaken and that Roman Catholic sacred tradition is indeed man-made. Here is an excerpt from the Staycatholic.com essay on tradition where the references to the early church are found.
“Early Christians knew the importance of Sacred Tradition. In the year 200 AD Tertullian wrote, ‘Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions’ ( The Demurrer against the heretics 19:3). A few decades later, Origen writes, ‘That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition’ ( Fundamental doctrines 1, preface: 2, circa 225 AD).”
The following is just one of many examples that demonstrate the absurdity of the Catholic claim that their sacred tradition is of apostolical source. More >
Christian Authority: Church or Scripture?
Jan 2nd
In response to the general introduction of “The Church and Tradition”
One of the main points of contention between Catholics and Protestants is what each considers to be the source of Christian authority. Catholics will point to the Catholic magisterium as the supreme authority while Protestants look to the Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith. In his book, The Church and Tradition, Agius objected to the idea that each individual believer could judge for himself the precepts set forth in the word of God. He further asserted that only the church can proclaim what doctrines are to be believed and what practices are to be observed, and whether such doctrines and practices are found in Scripture or not.
The introduction to this book is very short, but in it are two quotes from writers who wrote during the period of church history known as the ante-Nicene period. The ante-Nicene period is the time in church history before the council of Nicea, which was held in the year, 325. Both quotes – one from a second century bishop named, Irenaeus and the other from a third century presbyter named, Tertullian – are intended by Agius to support his claim that the rule of faith belongs to the Catholic Church rather than to each one’s own interpretation of Scripture. More >
The Plight and Flight of the Puritans
Oct 30th
There has never been a country like it nor can any ancient kingdom compare. It was built upon the principles found within the pages of Sacred Text and sustained by the faithfulness of God. Thrust upon her shores were men, women, and children whose destiny was to build a Christian nation. Driven by both persecution and a passionate drive for Gospel liberty, they came to America. They laid the foundation of a nation that would become the symbol of freedom for the entire world. They were simple God fearing devout Christians known as the Puritans.
Looked upon as heretics by Catholics and fanatics by many Protestants, Puritans suffered greatly being persecuted by both. But it was their aspirations that were essential in the shaping of American politics and culture. To discover who the Puritans were and why they came to America, we must go back into history about 500 years to a time when kings ruled and the title to religion was held by the state.
The Church and Tradition in Context (CTIC) Project
Oct 16th
Introduction
What is the CTIC Project?
C.T.I.C. stands for “Church and Tradition in Context.” It is a series of articles addressing the claims of a book written by Msgr. George Agius called, “Tradition and the Church.” The book was written in 1928 and was updated and rereleased in 2005 by TAN books. Many Catholics consider this book to be the quintessential guide on the validity Catholic tradition. The publisher even goes so far as to call the book, “providential,” and asserts that if a person reads it, he will “never question the nature of Tradition again.”
Here is one published review:
This book exposes all aspects of Tradition, so that once a person has read his book, he will never question the nature of Tradition again and will have a healthy respect for what has been handed down to us from the Apostles. Though this is an excellent book to help Protestants understand the role of Tradition, every priest, bishop and cardinal, every seminarian and everyone who considers himself to be an informed Catholic should also read this providential book – which is reappearing at a crucial time in the history of the Church, to help clarify our understanding about the nature of the Deposit of Faith and how we should all revere and cherish the Tradition of the Church…that Church which is the vehicle of our salvation.
And here is what a reader had to say…
“This Catholic book debunks the Protestant views of “sola scriptura” “sufficiency of scripture” and supremacy of private interpretation. Any Protestant who reads this book will have heartburn, for sure. Catholics who have even read the Catechism of the Catholic Church need to read this exhaustive (310 page) book on why Catholicism is the Church of Jesus Christ. I may as well say that here, because that is what the book says. And, more than that, the book proves it — from scripture.
Anyone who wants to be a Protestant needs to climb over the insurmountable arguments in this book, to be intellectually honest. Protestantism is actually a rejection of scripture, because you have to reject so much scripture to be a Protestant. You have to reject “the whole gospel” to pick and choose the verses that make you feel good. With all due respect, the book shows AND SAYS that Protestantism is contradictory, inconsistent, unbiblical, and unhistorical. No one should be mislead now about what is in this book. I’ve said it.” (R. Luczak, Posted on Amozon.com)
The CTIC project will not only clime over the so-called “insurmountable” evidence of this book; it will examine it with a fine-toothed comb and compare it to the contextual evidence of history and Scripture.
Agius’ book is apologetic in nature and was written in response to the Protestant doctrines of “Sola Scriptura” and “Privet Judgment.” The CTIC Project is not a defense of Protestantism or any of its doctrines. The project is simply a critical examination of the evidence Agius claimed as support for Sacred Tradition as presented in his book, Tradition and the Church.
About the Author, Msgr. George Agius, from catechismclass.com:
“Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D. was a priest that served in the various dioceses throughout the United States and abroad, and studied in Rome with the (then) future pope Pius XII. He spent much of his life and priestly ministry studying in order to help meet the challenges that confronted the Church in the 1920’s. It was during this time that he wrote Tradition and the Church, which was originally published in 1928, largely in response to Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and private judgment.”
The History of Infant Baptism and Original Sin
– Part 6: Augustine
Sep 11th
The fifth century brings the final chapter to our subject. It’s where the doctrines of infant baptism and original sin are thrust into victory by the influential and increasingly powerful leadership of the church. Among those leaders was the influential and highly revered, Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine was a philosopher who converted to Christianity when he was about 33 years old. He became bishop of Hippo when he was 41 years old. As bishop Augustine essentially defined the doctrine of original sin in the context of infant baptism. In his writings against the Pelagians there is evidence of at least three differing and popular philosophies concerning the spiritual state of an infant at birth. The two primary, and possibly only, philosophies opposed by Augustine were these that he addressed in his writings:
“Infants are absolutely pure and free from all sin, whether original or actual; and those who suppose that so soon as born, infants have contracted actual sins of their own, from which they need cleansing by baptism.” (Merits of remission of sin and Infant Baptism 1:64)
The latter demonstrates a fair amount of confusion. As far as most were concerned, the church had been baptizing infants since the time of Christ, but reasons as to why conjured questions and theories. As we saw with Origen and Tertullian, people saw infants as innocent and pure, but conversely, they were taught by tradition that infants were also in need of baptism. And we saw how the collision of the two met head on in a letter written by Cyprian, where he logically concluded that infants must possess innate strains of Adam’s sin, or else why would they be in need of baptism. Incidentally, Cyprian is the only historical reference mentioned by Augustine in his thesis, and whose logic he adopted.
But Augustine goes much further in his assessment of the state of infants. He argues at length from Scripture using every implicit interpretation possible to make his case. And the case Augustine makes is nothing short of appalling in the eyes of those who see in infants the innocents of God’s creation. More >
The History of Infant Baptism and Original Sin
– Part 5: Cyprian
Aug 26th
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage; 255
We journey back now to the western church precisely where we left it, in the city of Carthage in the year 255, fifty years after Tertullian’s treatise on baptism. The church was still reeling from the recent persecution under the Emperor Trajan Decius. Five years earlier Decius issued an edict of suppression of Christianity. The edict required that all the occupants of the empire sacrifice before the magistrates of their community. Every resident that complied received a certificate of compliance. Failure to comply would result in torture and death.
Decius and his son who ruled with him both died in battle in 251. Decius’ persecution briefly subsided before his death, but in place of the persecution came a devastating plague that killed upwards of 5,000 a day. The plague became known as the “Plague of Cyprian” because it was particularly devastating in Carthage where he was bishop.
From the time Cyprian converted to the Christian faith he was on the fast track to the episcopate. It was not uncommon for wealthy well-educated converts to become bishops within a year or two of their baptism, and Cyprian fit that description. In many cases this practice was an issue for the church and is cited as one of the causes of the many schisms that took place throughout the church in the third century.
At a time when the legacy of the office of bishop was one of dedication and bravery, Cyprian fell far short of the persona of a bishop. Decius’ edict was first imposed upon the church leadership. But before the persecution reached Carthage Cyprian fled the city and went into hiding, abandoning his flock as the ravening wolves came to devour the sheep.
The History of Infant Baptism and Original Sin
– Part 4: Origen
Aug 20th
Living around the same time as Tertullian in the eastern city of Caesarea Palestine, was one of the most renowned theologians in church history, a man named, Origen. Origen was instructed in the faith at a young age under the guidance of Clement of Alexandria in Egypt. Origen was extremely intelligent and dedicated to his studies, which propelled him in advancing past his contemporaries. He wrote extensively and some of his works are extant. One thing that can be ascertained about Origen from his works is that he was undoubtedly cutting edge when it comes to theological advancement. What I mean by that is Origen was not constrained by orthodoxy; if he understood a portion of Scripture in a way never before heard he had no problem persuading others to understand it the same way. It is from this man that we find the earliest clear instruction on why infants were baptized in the early church – and it is in clear contrast to the reason given in the catechism of the Catholic Church.
There is a quote from Origen that you will probably come across on many Catholic apologetic websites. The quote comes from Origen’s commentary on the Book of Romans and usually appears like this:
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Commentary on Romans 5:9)
The quote makes it appear as though Origen is saying that infants are born with sin, but that is not at all what he was saying. More >
The History of Infant Baptism and Original Sin
– Part 3: Tertullian
Aug 12th
In the early third century, a presbyter in Carthage (modern day Tunis Tunisia) named, Tertullian, wrote a famous treatise on baptism. Catholic apologists apparently give a great deal of credence to this document as they often reference it as support for the necessity of baptism. But also contained in this work is something Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, insists does not exist, and that is a clear objection to infant baptism.
Keating repeatedly states in his books and on his website, Catholic Answers, that there is no written objection to infant baptism prior to the reformation. Yet from the same third-century work he references as historical proof for the necessity of baptism, resides the evidence that infant baptism was indeed disputed. Here is what Tertullian said:
“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.” (Tertullian on Baptism, 18; 208A.D.)
Here we have explicit confirmation that infant baptism and disputes over the practice were both occurring in the early third century. Tertullian’s use of the phrase, innocent period is quite incidental and suggests that it was well understood that infants were innocent of sin. We can gather from Tertullian’s treatise that at least on of the reasons infants were being baptized seemed to be because of how some interpreted Matthew 19:14: “Suffer the children, and forbid them not to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. Those people understood this to mean that Jesus was commanding that little children be baptized. Tertullian disagreed and argued that children should first understand why they should come to Christ.
The History of Infant Baptism and Original Sin – Part 2: Irenaeus
Aug 6th
About twenty or thirty years later, a bishop in Lyons Gaul (France) named, Irenaeus, wrote a five-book treatise On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis, or it’s Latin title, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies). In book two of Irenaeus’ work is a statement, that according to some, supplies evidence of infant baptism.
“For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise.” (Against Heresies 2:22:4)
The key phrase here is, born again. Those who say Irenaeus provides incidental evidence for infant baptism link these words to another place in his work where he uses them to refer to those that are baptized. It is reasonable to conclude that this supports the idea that infant baptism might have been practiced in Irenaeus’ time, but it is far from being actual proof, as some assert it is. The simple fact is; there is no conclusive evidence from Irenaeus’ works that infant baptism was practiced in his time. But whether or not the practice of baptizing infants existed then, it did develop sometime in the late second century. The question therefore becomes, why were infants baptized?
Can it get any more irrational than this?
Aug 4th
The following quote comes from a brief discussion I had yesterday with a Catholic priest on the bread of life discourse. I told him that since the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus’ words, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you,” are to be interpreted literally, then Catholics ought to believe that salvation cannot exist for anyone that does not receive communion in a Catholic or Orthodox mass.
This is how he responded:
“Unless a man has at least the implicit desire to receive the Eucharist (implicit, i.e. he may not even recognize this desire or be able to express it in words), that man cannot be saved.” (Ryan Erlenbush, Catholic priest in Montana)
He may not even recognize this desire? That assertion is bizarre enough on its own, but let’s put some context to it and see just how outrageous it really is. More >
Recent Comments