In Search of the True Church Characteristics Evil will never prevail (defeat, completely overcome) the Church: Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. QUESTION: Must not the true Church must have a visible, historically verifiable existence which can be traced back to the Apostles? ANSWER: The Roman Catholic Church, through it's unbroken succession of Popes, accompanied by the Church Magisterium and consistent doctrine, can historically verify an unbroken existence. The Apostolic Church will exist until Christ returns in Glory, and Christ will be with the Church until that time: Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. QUESTION: Is there any instance in the New Testament where Christ uses the term 'with you' (Latin 'sum vobiscum') that he does not refer to his physical, bodily form? ANSWER: The Roman Catholic Church has Christ, bodily yet mysteriously, present in the consecrated Host of the Eucharist. The body of Christ is a single unit with Christ as head: Romans 12:5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. No division is permitted from the Church: 1 Corinthians 12:25 That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another. QUESTION: Is this statement a 'wish' or a command in relation to the Church, which at that time was a single, united body? ANSWER: Since Galatians 5:20 says those who engage in 'dissensions(divisions), sects (heresies) shall not "obtain the Kingdom of God," separation from the Church established by Christ must be regarded as a command not to be broken. QUESTION: Did God ever command (or condone) the separation of the Godly Israelites from the often sinful and irresponsible priests and established religion in Jerusalem? ANSWER: No. There is only on faith (body of correct teachings): Ephesians 4:3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. QUESTION: Is a variety of theological opinions or interpretations acceptable in the church? ANSWER: Galatians 1:7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Keys in the Bible always symbolize authority: Revelation 1:18 And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. Isaiah 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. Peter is the only apostle given a 'key' by Jesus, setting him apart: Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Question: Isn't this authority given to all the apostles, just as 'binding and loosing' was in Matthew 18:18? ANSWER: The Douay Rheims (and King James Version also) use 'thee' to signify a singular subject or person, and you for plural. Thus, Jesus was specifically addressing Peter. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There is no other disciple mentioned as frequently and prominently in the New Testament as Peter. 2. Peter served as: a. Group spokesman following Pentecost (Acts 1:14 +) b. God chooses Peters in Acts 10-11 to introduce the Gentiles into the Church, and those who objected 'held their peace' (Acts 11:18) at Peter's testimony c. Peter is a target of imprisonment and miraculous escape (rather than being a martyr as James) d. Peter's words are respected and authoritative at the first Church Council in Jerusalem (Act 15:7 +) e. Paul specifically visits Peter before working for the Church: Galatians 1:18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 3. Only Peter is commissioned specifically by Jesus to "feel my lambs" (John 21:15). Aside from references to Christ, the Greek word lamb (arnion) is only used in he New Testament to refer to the disciples (aren) in Luke 10:3. Thus, Jesus is commissioning to lead and care for the other apostles. The apostles regarded their office (apostleship) as a distinct office which needed to be filled in the case of vacancy: Acts 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. QUESTION: Since the apostolic office would be filled from that point on, wouldn't Peter's particular position of authority also be filled? PRIESTHOOD The apostles were warned not to covet special titles and honor from men: Matthew 23:11 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. QUESTION: Is it inappropriate to call a priest or the Pope 'father'? ANSWER: Jesus condemned the coveting of special titles of honor (rabbi/teacher, father and master) in Matthew 23:2-13, not the appropriate use of titles of honor. While some single out 'father' for special attention, these same individuals accept the title of teacher or have schools with a 'headmaster'. All three titles are treated equally, and are used throughout Scripture: John 3:10 Jesus calls Nicodemas a 'master of Israel' Ephesians 6:9 Paul calls those in charge of servants 'masters' (and many other verses) 1 Corinthians 3:1 Paul urges Christians not to 'contend with their teachers' 1 Timothy 2:2 Paul calls Bishops 'a teacher' 4 Kings 2:12 - Elisha calls Elijah 'father' Acts 7:2 Stephen refers to Abraham as 'father' Acts 9:10 Paul refers to Isaac as 'father' 1 Corinthians 4:14 Paul refers to himself as a spiritual 'father': I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. 15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. Certain offices were outlined in Scripture: Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ; to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. Acts 14:22 And when they had ordained to them priests* in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. * WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DEFINITION: Priest n. [OE. prest, preost, AS. pre¢¢st, fr. L. presbyter, Gr. elder, older, n., an elder, compar. of an old man, the first syllable of which is probably akin to L. pristinus. Cf. Pristine, Presbyter.] 1. (Christian Church) A presbyter elder; a minister; specifically: (a) (R. C. Ch. & Gr. Ch.) One who is authorized to consecrate the host and to say Mass; but especially, one of the lowest order possessing this power. Murdock. QUESTION: If the New Testament Church regarded 'elders' as 'priests', why didn't they call them that plainly? ANSWER: Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. The Old Testament priesthood was in place, up until AD 70, and the establishment of a 'new' (non-Aaronic) priesthood would have alienated potential Jewish converts. 1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all. Avoiding the term 'priest' removed a obstacle which Jews would have objected to. Because of the nature of their work, 'elders' began to be called 'priests' by the Church which became more and more 'gentile'. The dictionary word derivative clearly shows this. A celibate priesthood/clergy is presented as an ideal for those called to serve: Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. 1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 7:20 20 Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called. 7:34 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. QUESTION: Paul's writings in Timothy and Titus mention a married clergy...isn't the Roman Catholic Church being unscriptural in requiring a celibate priesthood? ANSWER: There is not Scriptural mandate for or against celibacy. From the time of Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), the Church has elected to make celibacy a requirement for the priesthood based on practical considerations along with the advantages annunciated by St. Paul. Married men may be Deacons and hold other offices (Acolyte). The priesthood has been reserved for men only based on Scriptural precedent: Numbers 18:7 But thou and thy sons look ye to the priesthood: and all things that pertain to the service of the altar, and that are within the veil, shall be executed by the priests. 10 Thou shalt eat it in the sanctuary: the males only shall eat thereof, because it is a consecrated thing to thee. 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve. Question: Isn't the prohibition for woman to participate a priests a reflection of the cultural chauvinism of the culture in which the Bible was written? ANSWER: The Bible records women in positions of influence (Deborah the prophetess in Judges 4:4 and wicked queens like Jezabel in 4 Kings) and many holy women in the New Testament whose faith and devotion was stronger at times than that of most apostles (Mary Magdalene). But, they never were given any official position by Jesus or His apostles. EUCHARIST Jesus is a priest in the Order of Melchisedech: Genesis 14:18 But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God 19 Blessed him... Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Jesus Himself is the perfect sacrifice offered once, and no further sacrifice is necessary: Hebrews 9:28 So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; 10:12 But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God... The sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross was an eternal sacrifice, beyond our ability to understand time: 1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, 20 Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you... Revelation 13:8 And all the dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world. Jesus declared the Last Supper to be His body and blood...the sacrifice: Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, 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. Luke 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. The 're-offering' of the one sacrifice of Christ is detailed in the Old Testament: Malachias 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. QUESTION: Won't this prophecy be fulfilled at some time in the future, perhaps with a 'restored' Israel? ANSWER: Hebrews 10:3 But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. All animal offerings are 'impure' sacrifices. Christ's sacrifice was once for all. So the 'clean oblation' 'offered' can only be the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass. Christ is represented as as the 'Passover' lamb: 1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us feast... The offering of the blood of the Passover Lamb was always done by the priest, in this case Christ Himself, while the people at the 'body' of the sacrifice: Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption. Provision was made for those not able at the time to eat the Passover Lamb: Numbers 9:10 Say to the children of Israel: The man that shall be unclean by occasion of one that is dead, or shall be in a journey afar off in your nation, let him make the phase (Passover) to the Lord. 11 In the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and wild lettuce... QUESTION: Wasn't the Passover a 'remind' or memorial of the original historical event when Israel was freed from bondage in Egypt? ANSWER: The Passover lamb was an actual sacrifice. This implies that Christ's body is also an actual, 'real' sacrifice to be consumed. The taking of communion is called a sacrifice: Hebrews 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. 16 And do not forget to do good, and to impart; for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained. *impart: Greek koinania also translated 'communion' in 1 Corinthians 10:16; both clearly referring to consuming the Lord's body. Jesus told the disciples that they must 'eat' his flesh and drink his blood in the future: John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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. 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. The Jews and disciples took Jesus literally as referring to the consumption of His physical body: John 6:53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. QUESTION: Isn't Jesus referring to spiritually 'feeding on' His teachings...on the 'Word'? ANSWER: Matthew 19:27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? The disciples and others (the Seventy) had already been 'feeding' on his teachings and had left all earthly attachments to follow Him...this is what they expected to be asked to do. Jesus asked something, which they and the hearers, clearly regarded as eating (Greek phago meaning devour, consume, eat) Christ's literal body. Paul declares those who receive communion 'unworthily' are guilty of the actual 'body' of the Lord: 1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. QUESTION: Doesn't this imply not taking seriously the 'act' commanded by Jesus, rather than a dishonoring of Christ's actual, literal body? ANSWER: Greek diakrino means discern, determine, discriminate...in other words, realize and recognize the 'body'. Koimaomai, or sleep, is often used to mean death (Lazarus in John 11:11' Stephen in Acts 7:59). The Old Testament emphasizes the need to be 'clean' or worthy to participate in the sacrificial process (note Mary waiting 40 days for her 'purification' before presenting Jesus in the Temple and making sacrifice (Luke 2:23, 24). Other 'commemorations' or feasts such a Dedication and Tabernacles did not have requirements of cleanliness. Passover (Numbers 10:9), where the sacrifice is to be eaten by the people, requires ceremonial 'cleanliness' or 'worthiness'. God's supernatural physical punishment due to partaking of the body in an 'unworthy' manner implies that it is more than just a 'reminder' of what Christ did for man. Certain things were reserved for the Apostles to do, rather than ordinary believers: John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. 15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. In order to a 'transformation' of the bread/wine to the body/blood of Christ, a blessing must be given: 1 Corinthians 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? QUESTION: Can't anyone, through prayer, consecrate (bless) the communion elements? ANSWER: The Greek word eulogeo is most often used by someone authorized or in a spiritual leadership capacity to convey God's 'blessing' (in just about every use of the term 'bless' with Jesus, such as Matthew 26:26 with the bread and wine of the Last Supper; Simeon blessing the Baby Jesus in Luke 2:28 through the Holy Spirit; Melchisedech blessing Abraham Hebrews 7:1). The process of 'blessing' implies a spiritual 'setting apart' of some individuals to supernaturally convey God's blessing and consecration of the bread and wine. The apostles were authorized to do this, as were those they authorized (bishops, priests), but not every Christian. TRADITION Jesus urged compliance with tradition: Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Jesus condemned the occasional mis-application of the traditions: Matthew 7:6 But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain to they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. Paul warns of man-centered 'traditions' or philosophy: Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ... Christian tradition's parts, oral and written, are equally praised by Paul: 2 Thessalonians 1:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. QUESTION: Doesn't the Bible contain all of the 'tradition' of Jesus? ANSWER: The Bible was not organized formally until the Council of Carthage (AD 400), determining which books truly were inspired. There was a larger body of writings and oral traditions also recognized and accepted by the Church, often called Church 'tradition.' Just as the Old Testament had the Jewish Mishah (a larger work of Rabbis who interpreted the Law), Christians had 'Tradition' which also revealed the correct application of Christ's teachings. The Old Testament writings ('Scripture' in this day and time) and oral/written teacings of the Church (14) are given equal status and value: 1 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. QUESTION: Isn't Paul referring to those teachings written in the New Testament canon? ANSWER: At the writing of 2 Timothy, all of the Canon hadn't been written, not organized, nor distributed to all of the individual local Churches. Thus, oral teachings were regarded as authoritative. Not everything that Jesus did or taught was written in the New Testament Scriptures: John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. Jesus continued to teach the disciples after the Resurrection and before the Ascension: Luke 24:45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. QUESTION: Wouldn't this have been a review of His previous teachings? ANSWER: There is no written record of the forty days of teaching of Jesus, yet that would have been shared with the Church through oral teaching and would have been valuable since the disciples had full 'understanding' of the meanings. The Old Testament is called 'Scripture' with only one correct (not private) interpretation: Matthew 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Peter calls Paul's teaching 'Scripture' with only one correct interpretation: 2 Peter 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Peter declares that 'private interpretation' of prophecy is unacceptable: 2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. QUESTION: Doesn't this statement apply to the origin (the prophet) of the prophecy, and not to the understanding of it? ANSWER: Since there is one specific meaning to the prophecy, the actual giving of the prophecy and accompanying correct interpretation are both essential since removing either element would render the prophecy useless. Jesus promises divine guidance to the Apostles in their future teaching: John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. QUESTION: Isn't this divine guidance given to all believers? ANSWER: Not to the degree to which it was given to the Apostles, and only to the degree that Christians agree with the Apostles' teachings: Acts 2:42 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. CONCLUSIONS: 1. There must be a consistent, non-contradictory doctrine of faith traceable back to Christ, through the Apostles and early Church Fathers. 2. If the Church Fathers up to AD 400 may be trusted to compile the New Testament and judge which books were truly inspired, then we should be able to trust the majority of their other writings using consistency as a guide for orthdoxy. 3. The writings and practices of the Church through the Council of Carthage reflect the doctrine and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. 4. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.