Is Pope Benedict A Protestant? And Other Silly Things One Could Try to Prove

In the book to your left, the author--in three volumes nonetheless, seeks to *prove* from the witness of the early Church Fathers the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. I've seen this before and will see it again. It's rather tiresome, and three volumes of it would be grueling: clipping, editing and airmailing quotes to make them fit whatever you are trying to prove. Exegeting stuff to death until it renders the meaning you intend. Stringing out arguments long enough to distract the average reader from the validity of the conclusion. Not to even mention that none of these "Church" Fathers come to any of the theological conclusions regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, Confession, Purgatory that the average Protestant would, we are still challenged to believe that they believe in sola scriptura. What's funny to me is that this position would in a way evidence the possibility of arriving at all kinds of un-Protestant doctrines using a Protestant method. Hmmm. To demonstrate just how ridiculous this claim is, I will now prove to you that Pope Benedict XVI is a sola scriptura Protestant. The following are some quotes from PBXVI:

"Above all I think it is this: to love the word of God in sacred Scripture. St. Jerome said, 'To ignore Scripture is to ignore Christ. That is why it is important that every Christian live in contact and in personal dialogue with the word of God, given to us in sacred Scripture."

"We must also keep in mind that the word of God is given to us in order to build communion, to unite us in the truth along our way to God."

"Human opinions come and go; what is very modern today will be old tomorrow. But the word of God is the word of eternal life, it carries within itself eternity, which is always valuable. Carrying within ourselves the word of God, we also carry eternal life."

"The study of the sacred page should be, as it were, the very soul of theology"

"the centrality of the divine word in the Christian life"

“Are we truly pervaded by the word of God? Is that word truly the nourishment we live by, even more than bread and the things of this world? Do we really know that word? Do we love it? Are we deeply engaged with this word to the point that it really leaves a mark on our lives and shapes our thinking?"

"You must know how to translate the indications of the word into daily witness, allowing yourselves to be formed by the word which, like seed sown in good soil, brings abundant fruit. Thus you will remain docile to the Spirit and grow in union with God, you will cultivate fraternal communion among yourselves and be ready to serve your brethren generously, especially those most in need."

Let's recap. According to Pope Benedict:

• We should love the Word of God above all
• The Word of God unites us
• The Word of God bring us eternal life
• The Scriptures are the soul of theology central to the Christian life
• The Scriptures should "shape our thinking" and form us

Wouldn't we expect a Roman Catholic to say that we should:

• Love Christ in His Church above all
• That the Pope is the principle of unity not the Scripture
• We receive eternal life through the Church
• The soul of theology is the Church, which is the ground and pillar of the truth
• The Church should shape our thinking since it is the authoritative teacher

Since Pope Benedict said the former, he is not a Roman Catholic but a Protestant. Specifically, he is clearly a sola scriptura Protestant. 

One could also try to prove that the Church Fathers were sola scriptura Protestants as well. Oops, I think that already happened.

FULL STOP

On my journey to the Catholic Church, books like King's were discouraging. Arguments like the above read disingenuous at their core. As a semi-anti-Catholic, I could still see the Catholicity and papal tendencies of the epistles of Clement during my research on my undergraduate thesis. Even though I personally subscribed to a disparaging view of Catholicism at the time, the textual evidence required that I either (a) dissent from their opinion or (b) admit that it was unlike my own and be the cause of my consternation. At the time, I chose the the former. 

Reading into texts "catch" phrases is wrong headed. It fails to consider the already existing paradigm of the author and projects onto him or her the interpreter's paradigm. I can hear the objection that we all have paradigms. My reply is simply that what the objector is thinking about is some type of psychological state and not a paradigm as such. For our purpose, a paradigm is something that can be uncovered. It can be as simple as finding out that the author was a bishop in union with the bishop who sits on the Chair of St. Peter. Such a fact finding mission would inform how we understand various other statements of the author. Similarly, the corpus of Pope Benedict and the Church Fathers would naturally preclude a conclusion that either held to the doctrine of sola scriptura. 

Does any one single Church Father make a slam dunk case for conversion? [If you don't count their prayers in heaven] Probably not. However, they do present mounting evidence for a Catholic view of the Church and the doctrinal positions that the Catholic Church teaches. That is a fair reading of the Church Fathers (here's a link, go have fun). You only need to google "the Church Fathers are wrong" to find an assortment of articles detailing how and why the Church Fathers erred. This popular evidence is, I think, more telling of the reality of what in fact the Church Fathers do and do not teach. And, I can more fully appreciate and respect dissent from the reality of something than descent from reason.

A Conversion Essay Worth Reading

If you are in the mood for conversion stories, you need to check out this one by another ORU graduate vis-a-vis Yale Divinity School. It is elegantly written, and reminded me of my journey because of the influence of Blessed Newman on both Michael and me. So, in this case, I get the benefit of sharing with you reasons for my conversion while at the same time not having to lift a finger to do so. Sort of (I'm watching my fingers lift right now).

Michael Rennier and Family

From his essay:

"I can say this, in turning to the Catholic Church I do not turn to something foreign and alien to Anglicans or evangelicals. I turned, rather, to the Catholic Church in order to become more fully what I already was. I have been raised [Pentecostal] to expect joyfully the activity of the Holy Spirit in my life; I expect Him all the more. I have come to understand the beauty of the English liturgy, the patterns that are formed through Common prayer, the primacy of Scripture, and salvation through Christ alone apart from my own efforts; I believe in those all the more."

PLEASE DO READ THE REST OF IT HERE...

I'm Taking a Break...

I have decided to take another break from blogging. This entire thing started as an attempt to communicate my reasons for becoming Catholic. I'm not a blogger. Because I know how to write (kinda-sorta), I think it has come across that I am a blogger. 

That's Me to the Right

I'm no luddite. Yet two years ago blogging was anathema to me. I thought the whole point of a journal was to keep it under wraps, that if your friend found it, they were out of luck because they didn't have the key. Blogging seemed to turned that on its head. People journaling, detailing their lives in a digital exhibit, all hoping to be found. Even though most blog are not found, its like dancing naked on the streets. The internet is big, and you never know when some Russian middle aged dude will be getting a peep. 

That all said, I feel as though I am being swept away into a culture that is foreign to me. I know much good is accomplished in blogging. I really do. However, I always intended to make this site more of a a dissemination channel. I enjoy the interaction, but this is more about me telling my family and friends "why I am Catholic". 

Thus, I am taking a break to figure it out again. I won't stop writing, but it will be off-line. When I come back, I cannot promise that there will be a "standard rotation" of publishing. I understand that in blogging, being consistent makes a blog better. I'm just going to have to disappoint. I will publish when I have something to say that contributes to my story. Case closed. If you don't see something for a while, it's because I don't have anything to say worth contributing to that story.

One last thought. I'm concerned about a trend in the online world. I'm afraid that our writing online--be it Facebook, blogging, Twitter, etc.--may be contributing to a problem and not a solution. The problem is, of course, attention span. If Christianity takes anything, it takes having an attention span. I know that the culture is obsessed with sound bites, and that in an attempt to "reach them" we communicate in their mode. I think this is backwards. If we are to evangelize the world, the first step will be to train them to pay attention. 

Look! Don't turn your head away. Look! Don't look down at your "smart" phone, chomp on your gum, or search something to TiVo. Look! Look at him! Gaze upon him. Stay there. Be like Mary, and allow the sword to pierce your soul at the foot of the cross. The first step is to pay attention. The sword will never even come unsheathed if you don't have an attention span. You are going to have to scroll for this one. There are no words in bold face to help you skip along. 

Stop. 

Read Him. 

May my posts be the cause of your continual turning to Christ, and like Mary, that we would all have an attention span to "watch with him but for an hour" or more, and be the cause of our culture to move beyond that nihilistic space between infancy and maturity. As Catholics, may we all demand more from our society, to go against the grain, to pray, fast, and do penance, and to call men off-line where the poor, naked, and homeless are. 

That will be my plumb-line. I want every post to spur you to stop reading. That maybe when I'm done my stat-reader will indicate "0", and that I will know you are out there somewhere reading a book or living the Gospel in all its incarnational glory.

"See you" when I see you. Peace to you on your journey.

Render Unto Caesar

"And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him."- Mark 12:17

I was graced to hear a wonderful homily by my priest this weekend--which is the occasion for this very brief post. I have to give credit where it's due, and certainly credit is due my holy and dutiful priest. Upon reflecting upon this passage from the gospel reading (actually Matthew 22:21), our priest posed the following question (paraphrase):

"As Catholics, should we impose our moral conscience on politics by focusing on issues that pertain to life? In other words, is it appropriate for Catholics to make life issues--particularly the unborn--the central motivation for our political actions?"

The answer is simple.

There are issues of Caesar, and there are issues of God. When an issue is God's (e.g., his gift of life), we are obliged to uphold--to render--both individually and collectively (polity)--the will of God. "Let your kingdom come and will be done" is a prayer that we do--not just say. Conversely, when an issue is of Caesar--prudential issues or secondary issues--then we are to act with wisdom. Nevertheless, we should not for a moment imagine that those secondary issues are on par with the issues that oblige us to act.

My priest concluded his homily by reminding us the importance of "rendering unto God" by our civic engagement--especially when "Caesars" act as if they are God.

St. Justin Martyr, pray for us!

Top 3 Videos of the Week: Idioms, War & Mystics

The videos are back! First up, I offer you a video guaranteed to make you laugh. If you don't laugh, there is something wrong with you. Really. If you don't find this at all funny, go get checked somewhere. The second video should make you pause and think (ht to MS). The last video is about St. Theresa of Avila from Father Baron's amazing book and video series: The Catholicism Project. It reminded me of one of the reasons "Why I'm Catholic".

Have a wonderful weekend! 

Reason #1 Why I'm Catholic

Jesus Christ

I know. Anyone could say this. So what. I am and I will (I just did). Just because I'm Catholic doesn't mean I can't gush with my affection for Christ. Don't confuse Catholicism with a religion purely of the mind. A 2,000 year learning curve and numerous genius saints can create the false illusion that Catholicism for anyone less than a brain surgeon doesn't exist. It actually keeps some people out of the Church.

"Oh, that Catholicism is not for me. I'm too simple."

"I don't understand all their terminology. It's just too hard."

In one sense, theology is like any other ology. Just like it doesn't take a biologist to be a good lover, it doesn't take a theologian to be a great saint. To know the beloved is to become the beloved which is the message of the Gospel: God became man that we could become sons and daughters of God. Pope Benedict XVI reminds us of this in his book Jesus of Nazareth:

"The Fathers of the Church say that when God created man 'in his image' he looked toward the Christ who was to come, and created man, according to the image of the 'new Adam,' the man who is the criterion of the human... Jesus is 'the Son' in the strict sense - he is of one substance with the Father. He wants to draw all of us into his humanity and so into this Sonship, into his total belonging to God."

St. Athanasius put it rather forcefully when he said, "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” [De Incarnatione 54.3]. In Adversus Haereses, St. Irenaeus tells us that God sent his Word so that we could be "partakers in the divine nature" (2 Peter 2:12). St. Chysostom clarifies how we partake of this nature:

"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature" (source)

I'm Catholic because Jesus came to earth and established a Church so that all of humanity could be re-configured, re-made, and renewed into the image of Himself. Catholicism is the story of the epic unfolding of that love affair.

May the Body and Blood of Christ bring me to everlasting life.

Amen.

Fake Fallibility: A Protestant Myth Worth Busting

Last Monday, I considered how everyone has a pope. Today, I want to bust a myth. However, instead of busting a myth about Catholicism, I want to bust a Protestant myth. (I'm so gosh darn warm and fuzzy).

I'm a lot like another ecumenist I know

Of course, no Protestant walks around saying that they have a Pope. Well, almost. My generous interlocutor in the comboxes of my last post was kind enough to bring to my attention that Protestants say that they are fallible. Unlike the papists who believe that their pope or Magisterium under a special grace of the Holy Spirit--at infrequent times and on important matters regarding the eternal destiny of the soul's of men on earth--can teach infallibly, the Protestants believe that on matters where one's soul could be damned to hell for believing something false, they could be all "well-golly-garsh", marbles in their mouth, caught with their theological pants down; in a word: fallible

I have two problems with this thought. (1) A tuquoque (you-too!) argument is hiding right around the corner. This argument says, "Catholics are fallible too! How can they know their pope/Magisterium or more, how can they know what their authorities teach? (at this point, the arguer looks to his crowd with delight, awaiting their applause)

The difference between the Protestant and Catholic methods for obtaining theological truth is that one (the Protestant) method cannot evidence results that warrant trusting it. We all trust our cognitive faculty to know stuff. That is beside the point. Doubting our cognitive faculty's ability to obtain truth is counterintuitive since we would also need to doubt the very premise that leads to our doubt--which would be just as rational as the doubt (in the premise) itself. Thus it is rational to dismiss this kind of doubt. What we can or should doubt is methods for obtaining truth. These methods can be more or less reliable. The results of the Protestant method for obtaining theological truth (sola or solo scriptura) do not warrant trusting that method. See here or here for evidence. (I will dedicate an entire post to this later)

However, the Catholic merely uses his cognitive faculty to identify the "Church" and then relies upon Her to authoritatively and infallibly interpret the deposit of faith. Moreover, no Protestant--I think--would try to say that "There are 7 Sacraments" is as ambiguous or "“exponentially multivocal, polysemic, and multivalent, [and] semantically indeterminate” as the Bible (see last link) under the Protestant paradigm. In other words, every Protestant sect wielding the method of sola scriptura has not arrived at anything remotely approximating the clarity of "There are 7 Sacraments". On the contrary, one group says there are no Sacraments, another 1, while another 3. Sure, each idea is clear to them. But that is not the point. No one is trying to arrive at a "true-for-me" theological truth, but rather a universal theological truth. In other words, I'm worried about a method that has objects both falling if dropped and not falling if dropped.

On a last note, it is interesting as well that many non-Catholic interlocutors will note that this or that parish is unorthodox as an attempt to evidence how poorly the Catholic paradigm works for its adherents. Ironically, it apparently works well enough that a non-Catholic can spot Catholic orthodoxy fairly easily without even personally subscribing to the paradigm.

Kids, its time to go home.

Which leads me to my second contention: (2) no Protestant confession, statement of faith, or major doctrinal position has EVER been significantly or substantively revised. In other words, what bite is there in being theologically fallible if one never comes to that "a-hah" moment where one would concede (not real quotes):

"Well guys, we totally blew it. That whole 'Once-Saved-Always-Saved' bit...yeah...not so much"-Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Denomination 

"We are here to announce that con-substantiation is kind of silly. We now see that if the God who said, "Let there be light" and it was light said "this is my body", the 'this' is probably his body (we are updating the website)"-Dr. Harrison, President of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 

"Dear members, we will humbly announce this day that speaking in tongues is not a necessary experience for all Christians nor a necessary sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Don't be alarmed. We have been fallible all this time. I know, I know that many of you have based your entire existence on this belief. We will move past this, I promise." George Wood, General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God 

"You may use instruments in the worship service. We know many of you already were, but we just realized that Scripture doesn't teach against it. We're sorry for the confusion and hope to not make any more mistakes like this in the future. Every church will be receiving a drum kit, keyboard, and gibson guitar in the mail (some assembly required)" --Some pastor, trying to speak for the Churches of Christ

"That's taking it too far!", says quasi-pope person

Seriously, chest-bumping about "look how fallible we are" is little more than false pride or a version of the doubt-train heading toward "Mt. Solipsism". Of course, the individual Protestant, I suppose, could say that they ultimately always have the right to change ship. That per denominations, nobody acts as if they are fallible, but the individual Protestant always lives with the tension of fallibility and thus could always make the kind of about-face changes referenced above. However, I would immediately ask, if not what they just described, what in the world is Ephesians 4:14 describing if not them:

"That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" 

Moreover, I don't think any Protestant holds to any particular belief with the type of fallible tension we are suppose to believe they do (or I did!). Go to a Sunday school class or talk to a child to find out just how fallible each individual Christian is. I have respect for those who might be reading this, who aren't teaching Sunday school classes or indoctrinating children. They feel the tension of fallibility due to the unreliability of their method for obtaining theological truth. They are in a theological pregnant pause; one that will either birth a move to Rome or a fundamentalist move to one particular denomination (that is my common observation). Of course, the third option is that they live in the pregnant pause all of their lives and become emergent.

The point is that the Protestant claim to "fallibility" is a little more than stating the obvious. The Pope is fallible most of the time. So, were St. Peter and St. Paul. I am. Who cares. The point is that a lot of the time we have methods at our disposal to obtain truth with a degree of certainty correlative to the type of knowledge we are obtaining. In the case of Christian theology, everyone acts like they are infallible--eternity is at stake. There is no evidence other than church shopping to the contrary. Thus, the claim of "fallibility" is a myth or is at least an ad oculos, ad nauseam argument (irrelevant), I will not believe until I see some major denomination make a statement evidencing the contrary.


Wait a minute, I found one here. Maybe they are fallible after all...


Did you like what you read? Add me to your RSS feed or "join the journey" in the sidebar to your right. You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

7 Quick Takes Friday (Vol. 3)

-1-

I bought an iPhone 4! It's coming in a week. Not the new one, but the old one that was new and amazing one year ago. That's new enough for me. I need your help. I don't want to have to waste a thousand hours looking for iphone apps (which I probably will anyways). What are your top 3 must-have apps and why? (you can give me one if that request came across like an essay prompt)

Mmmm...apps you can eat!
source

-2-

If you don't already, I really recommend this blog. When I say that some people are a breath of fresh air, Joseph is one of those guys. He's honest, straight to the point and a vigilante for the Church. I mean that last part in the most good possible way. His blog, Defend Us in Battle, is prayerful, social and light hearted at times. I started doing these quick takes so I could add that "personal touch" to my blog. I'll be honest, I'm new to blogging because I never liked blogging. It felt too exhibitionistic to me. I'm still figuring out how blogging can best serve Christ. Sometimes I read critiques of blogging, even Joseph's recent post, and I ask myself, "Is he talking about me?" I enjoy writing and don't blog for cathartic reasons. This blog really is about "...why I'm Catholic and other things about that..." So...

-3-

...I was thinking about infallibility. I'm doing a post on Monday, and I need your help. My friend posted this, and then we were talking about my post on Monday and he reminded me of what he wrote there. So I said to myself, "Crud", I'm stealing his line. Then I realized that my argument was different and was an addendum to his argument so to speak. So, if you want a preview of Monday, go read the post at the link.

Some people believe that Christianity can always be presented as a ray of light beaming from the eternal city. I can blame this view on either (a) youthful ignorance or (b) a lack of personal suffering; or (c) something I haven't thought of. In fact, Jesus talked like this, this, this, this, this, and this. Why do I bring this up? I feel a need to defend a particular style of writing. Why? Because, I've read here or there about how we all need to be "smiley-happy-people" for Jesus. That's true but incomplete. The reality is that St. Augustine in On Baptism sounded more like "I pity the fool" than "God-bless their hearts" when talking to the schismatic Donatists.

Bringing a family back together many times requires addressing the dirty, nasty, keep-in-the-closet stuff. If ever my writing offend thee, pluck out your eye and read it with the other. No, really, sometimes my writing is blunt force trauma to the head. Why? Because, Christian unity is not always a ray of light. Sometimes, it means saying "Get thee behind me Satan". The fact that there are 38,000 denominations should do more than cause us pause, it should rend our hearts. We need to be eating together and writing that lays a common meal upon the table is important, but sometimes you have to get in the living room and air it out; and sometimes the guy wearing the self-made pope hat needs to be dressed-down--if you get my meaning.

-4-

On a lighter note, it's getting cooler down here in the south...

-5-

Exposing more of my personal life, I enjoy watching football. Have you heard of a bibliophile? It's someone that is obsessed with books. Well, that is not my struggle. I really like to read, especially non-fiction (yawn), but I also REALLY like to watch sports. It was a learning curve for my wife when we first got married. Marriage can be tough, especially adjusting to the quirks of the other spouse. Two recommendations: (1) DON'T try to change your spouse--you did not marry them under that pretense and (2) TRY to change yourself--your spouse deserves it!

-6-

I retract last week's comment about being the only one that is male that does quick takes. In fact this guy's pictures make his quick takes today a whole lot better than mine.

-7-

For the best Steve Jobs tribute picture, go here and check out an acquaintance of mine and incredible, REAL (makes a living doing it), bonafide artist: Owen Swain. 

(Quick Takes extra: my 2 year old son was just on my bed praying the rosary. If I could have captured the audio, it would have absolutely melted your heart. It melted mine.)

Have a wonderful weekend! It shall be raining here!

Thanks Jen for hosting!

I'm Not Here...

...I'm here:

Truth: The Paradox of Beauty...please do check it out!

Papal Home-Made Brewing Kits

"To pope or not to pope, that is the question"

-unknown

So it is in our time, that the idea of the Pope goes down like spam marinated in Natural Light, smothered in swiss cheese. Those who resist the Catholic Church's pope envision in their mind there is no such a thing. We have concocted a new unicorn, they say, a leviathan lurking around in history seeking whom he may devour. To break away from its mental grip, one imagines that he or she has escaped his primal rule. They now live on an island free to dance around under the autonomous reign of the Divine Justice--no longer oppressed by the pseudo-steward of the ahistorical Catholic imagination.

What's wrong with this picture? 

In addition to the fact that the papacy is inescapable via Scripture, history, and Tradition, the papacy is also inescapable from logic and experience. Jesus didn't create committees to sit around and cast lots for the account of truth. Nor did he set up a democracy--we can thank the Greeks for that. No. One is the principle of unity. It is the denominator everything shares. It is the teleological axis point of sanity.

To be fair, there is debate to be had on the account of Scripture, history and Tradition regarding what type of papacy exists, but one cannot help but agree that the papacy is logically and experientially necessary. So much so that any Christian, of any creed, believes in the papacy. That' right. They might not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter, but they believe in the papacy. Even the Hebrew people understood how the Seat of Moses and the Divine rule of G-d was compatible. A vacated throne will lead to anarchy and madness, and above all we will preserve the peace--at least of our mind. No anti-Catholic rhetoric can quiet the cool march of our conscience to sanity.

Instead of submitting to the successors of the Apostles in union with the Chair of St. Peter--gifted with the divine keys of prime ministership, we craft our own version. No individual or denomination acts as if there is no papal promulgations. Under the disguise of "Bible alone"(sometimes with the help of "divine revelation"), individuals--like Arius, Aldebert, Calvin, Smith or McPherson, pontificate ex cathedra like it's going out of style. Just because their writings don't look like the stuff to the right, doesn't mean they don't think their writings don't have the same effect.

No Christian community acts like their interpretation of Scripture is mere opinion. No denominational statements of faith read like "Dear Abby". Still, many Christian communities disagree on fundamental doctrines. Biblicists like to belittle the differences, but Sunday morning in America proves just the opposite. For those who reject the Catholic papacy, there can be one of only two possibilities on Sunday morning: either the person talking is the pope or the person listening.

The problem is that home-brewed papacies intoxicate the drinkers. When all you drink is what you like or what you've selected, whether you admit you prefer it or not, you will grow to prefer it. Less filling. More taste. Less filling. More taste. Less filling. More taste.

More taste?

Less Filling?

More taste?

Less Filling?

It all depends on what you want. Either way, someone will be the pope. At work you have a boss. At home, there is a father. An ant colony has a queen. Despite all our anti-Romanist tendencies, we cannot help but have a pope. We must have one or we will be one. If Christ said, "the Truth will set you free", denominationalism without micro-brewed papacies would lead to personal and private theological meltdowns. Sadly, the theological chernobyl effect is that the average "joe" or "sally" Christian in the pew is left to follow the average "joe" or "sally" preacher in the pulpit or at the denomination's headquarters. The radiation effect is theological cancer, the symptoms of which is theological "cells" warring against each other: some say baptism is necessary, others say Christ is in and with the bread and wine, some say divorce is okay, while others say you must speak in tongues to be saved.

To those that war against Christ's divinely instituted leaders--modern prophets leading Christ's Church through time and space, our Lord's words still resonate:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! (like the Apostles and their successors) How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."- Matthew 23:37

Most people have the common sense, decency, and humility to recognize they are no good at home-brewed beer. That's why they buy it at the store. So too, most people submit to their local church or denomination as a quasi magisterium because without one, they would jump off the proverbial theological bridge to nowhere.

Like no man is an island to himself, no man is without a pope. Rest assured, no matter what church you go to, there you shall find a pope. If you don't find one, you might have to check your closet to find your personal pallium hanging around right behind your Strong's Concordance.


Did you like what you read? Add me to your RSS feed or "join the journey" in the sidebar to your right. You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

(first image source)