INTRODUCTION

I, Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of Gods elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness... (Titus 1: 1) And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ (Phil.1: 9-10). I estimate that throughout the world there are no more than 100 people in the Protestant churches who are against the Catholic Church. Yes, there are many who oppose the Church, but what they are opposing is not the Catholic Church, but what they think is the Catholic Church... said the late Bishop Fulton Sheen. He tried to point out that the religions are against the Catholic Church because their understanding about her was erroneous. If I perceive that the Catholics adore the idols and Mary, that the Pope is God to the Catholics, that the Catholics think they can buy heaven with good works; if such is my thinking, I would no doubt be against this Church, too. However, the Catholic Church does not teach such things. This book is an invitation to recognize the teachings of the Catholic Church by means of the Bible, and through a Catholic who has accepted Jesus Christ as his Personal Savior and Lord. If I wish to know your church, my friend, I am not going to approach a Buddhist. I will come to you and ask you. You ought not to presume that whatever the pastors or ex-Catholics (who never understand thoroughly their Church which they have abandoned) say is correct. It is very probable that they err. This book is also an invitation to liberty for those who are searching the COMPLETE truth with sincere heart, knowing that the truth will set you free (Jn.8: 32). They are those who wish to be sanctified in the truth (Jn.17: 19). Therefore, this book is mainly for the courageous. Only those who have the courage and the honesty to bring themselves to face the truth, even though it may pain them, can proceed reading it. It is not easy to be open-minded, brushing aside the prejudices which we perhaps have had for many years. It costs us to think and to reflect, instead of making quick and easy decision. This is especially true when our beliefs are concerned, because they reach the core of our being. Its dying in order to live. Unless the grain of wheat dies, it remains just a grain. However, if it dies, it will bear much fruit (Jn.12: 24). The problem with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was that his heart became hard (Exod.7: 13-14). The Pharisees (members of a Jewish movement, which opposed Christ in general) thought they had the truth and that Jesus had nothing to show them. Their mind was closed. In reading this book, we will put not only the ideas to the test, but also the spirit, which we bring when we listen and read new ideas. Am I open? Or am I similar to the Pharaoh? We believe that the divisions, which we face in the world, with so many churches, are not from God. Jesus prayed that we would be one, as he and his Father are one (Jn.17: 21-22). Paul said: The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Cor.12: 12-13)1. In fact the word devil comes from Greek DIABOLOS which means, to divide. You and the Catholics have many beliefs in common: the Trinity, the love for the Word of God, the Cross etc. Why, then, are we separated? Why are there more than 28,000 different Protestant denominations? The answer lies in historical reasons and personal sins. The other reason is that many believe in the hearsay without verifying the truth of it. To continue doing so is to be participating in the division of the Body of Christ. Paul wrote: Test everything. Hold on to the good (1 Thess.5: 21). John wrote, test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 Jn.4: 1).

He who participates in the division, said Paul, will not enter into the Kingdom: The acts of the sinful nature are obvious, which are ...hatred, discord [other Bibles: divisions and sectorism]...they will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:20-22).

Every theme is related to the rest, but each can be studied separately as well. Some of them are more difficult to accept than the others. However, if we are open and honest, and have the desire to deepen our relation with Jesus, who is The Truth, little by little we will get there. I have known very anti-Catholic pastors who have 3 or 4 years of studies and have been able to confirm all these topics. This is our invitation -- to examine and prove all. The reason being, as Jesus Christ said, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father (Mt.7: 21). His will is found in the Bible and, unfortunately, as this book will show, there are dozens of biblical teachings which non-Catholics do not fulfill. May God bless you and to him may the glory be!

1. TO CALL A PRIEST FATHER-IS THAT ALWAYS BAD?

Catholics give the title Father to the priests. This bothers non-Catholics because they say that the Bible always prohibits such thing. They quote Mt.23: 9-10 where Jesus says: do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called teacher... 2 The problem is that non-Catholics do not read the whole context and do not reflect enough. The Catholic Church is able to distinguish between the good and the bad use of this title. The key is Mt.23: 12: he who exalts himself shall be humbled. When we read the context we see that the subject matter is not the title itself. but the attitude with which it is used. If calling the priest father leads him to pride, it is bad; however, if it does not, then it is not bad. In various places in the New Testament, the Apostles granted honorable titles to certain persons: most excellent Thoephilus (Lk.1: 3), most excellent Festus (Acts 26: 25) because there was no danger of falling into pride. Elisha called Elijah his spiritual father (2 Kings 2: 12 and 6: 21). In fact it was Jesus who gave us the example of calling a person father in Lk.16: 24, when he narrated the parable of Lazaro and the rich man, having him call Abraham as such. The same is in Jn.8: 56 which says: Your father Abraham... . This time it is not a parable. James calls Abraham your father in his epistle (James 2: 21). Will it be that Stephen, the first martyr for the sake of Jesus, contradicted the word of the Lord when he called Abraham father (Acts 6: 15 - 7: 2. See Rom.4: 16)? Or will it be that Stephen, as a mature Christian, knew how to distinguish the good and the bad use of the title? He also called the Jewish priests sitting in the council fathers: Brothers and fathers, as Paul did in Acts 22: 1. Paul indirectly calls himself father of Timothy when he calls Timothy his son (1 Tim.1: 2). He named himself as father of the Corinthians as well: I became your father (1 Cor.4: 15. See Phil.2: 22 and 1 Thess.2: 11). In his first letter, the Apostle Peter did the same in reference to Mark (5: 13). In the letter of Timothy, when Paul speaks about how he treats the elders (priests) of the Church, says: Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers (1 Tim.5: 1). If the evangelists have no problems in the second part of this exhortation of Paul to the younger men as brothers, which implies to call them as such, why would they not call the elders father in the same manner in their dealings? It does not make sense to exhort them as father if that was not it. Paul called the first Christians fathers in his first letter to Timothy (5: 4), The Apostle John did the same in his own letter (1 Jn.2: 13-14). If we take the words of Jesus literally not to call anyone on earth father, we would not be able to call a father of the family, too, as these Apostles did. We end our biblical investigation by jutting out from the Old Testament a text which demonstrates the link between being a priest and being a father: A young Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, who had been living within the clan of Judah, left that town in search of some other place to stay. On his way he came to Micahs house in the hill country of Ephraim. Micah said to him: Where are you from? I am a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, he said, and I am looking for a place to say. Then Micah said to him, Live with me and be my father and priest ... (Judge 17: 7-10). In this text the Word of God clearly teaches us the connection between father and priest: a priest is a spiritual father.

2. AN APOSTOSY IN THE CHURCH?

The Christianism of the year 440 represented a tremendous contrast to that of the year 100.... The Baptists, as their precursors Anabaptists, believe that in this period a great apostasy from the true faith
2

In addition, as we see Jesus also says we do not call anyone teacher, but we find that the same Bible addresses certain persons as teachers (Mt 10:24; 1 Tim 2:7; Jn 3:10; Heb 5:12). He even constituted them (Eph 4:11)!

occurred. This fall of the church coincided with the nationalization of the Christianism by Constantine and the beginners of the Roman Catholic Church. There are many theories regarding the when and the how of the fall (History of the Baptists Volume I. Justo Anderson. Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, Txas, 1978, 1993, pp. 124-125. Translated). Many religions say that the Catholic Church is the result of the apostasy (complete error) through the fusion of the roman paganism with her won. What is interesting is that these churches affirm to be the truth and that there would never be an apostasy among themselves. (If God can foresee an apostasy among these churches today, why could he not foresee it in the Early Church?) To support this affirmation, they generally quote the followings: 3 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people (Mt.24: 10-11). But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who brought you -bringing swift destruction on themselves (1 Peter 2: 1-2). I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20: 29-30) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith... (1 Tim.4: 1) Which is the truth? The Bible warns us that false prophets will come. However we see that the word of God never says that there would be a universal and complete apostasy. In Mt.24: 10-11, it reads (many false prophets) will deceive many people but not all. The same goes to 2 Peter. Moreover, in the letter of Peter we read that even in the worst moment of apostasy, in the time of Lot (vv. 4-6), there always existed some holy people and that God knew how to protect them from errors, and freed the just Lot, crushed by the wicked conduct of those evil ones...the Lord knows how to the pious from temptations (vv. 7 and 9). Also, Acts 20 does not say all but some of you. Then, finally, 1 Tim says, some will abandon. Other non-Catholics add in 2 Thess.2: 3 and Rev.13: 4, 6-9 as proofs of the total apostasy. But both the texts speak of the apostasy at the end of the world as a sign and an anticipation of the Second Coming of Christ, not the first years of the early Church. Look at the context of 2 Thess. (vv.1: 7-9 and 2: 1-2), the message of the Apocalypse is also regarding the end. Moreover, it is concerning the heroic saints and martyrs of the faith, not of the wicked (Rev.13: 7). The Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials , says Peter (2 Peter 2: 9). While speaking about the Church which he would build, Jesus said that the gates of Hades (hell) would not prevail against it (Mt.16: 18). In Mt.28: 20, we also read: And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age . He promises us that he is with us always. Jesus did not say I will be with you always if you behave well; if not, I will not stay. The Apostles were not going to live on this earth eternally. It is obvious that this promise would also refer to the successors of the Apostles. Isaiah prophesized of Jesus and of his kingdom that would begin as the Messiah to decree: And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on Davids throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever (Is.9: 6-7).
3

In addition to this, some teach that the Roman emperor Constantine founded the Catholic Church. But this does not agree with the historical facts. Constantine only conceded liberty to the Catholic Church; he did not found it. (See Chapter ****.) It is absurd that a church which endured three centuries of persecutions for not submitting herself to the roman state in religious matters (to accept paganism), suddenly had fallen in an apostasy with the empire.

His kingdom will remain well established, says the Bible. Jesus said that the fruit of his disciples should last (Jn.15: 16), something which would not be certain if there was a universal apostasy. Let us say that the Church, yes, did fall in apostasy. Jesus would have known this. Why, then, did He give the commandment to the Apostles: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt.28: 19), if He knew that soon His Church would fall into error? It would be impossible to evangelize the whole world in such a case. In addition, Jesus Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to His Church as a guide, so as to guard her on the path of the truth: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever (Jn.14: 16) But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (Jn.14: 26) But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth... (Jn.16: 13) How do we understand Jesus, Peter and Paul when they speak of the false prophets who are to come? We do not deny that there was error among men who claim to be Christians. Heresies and people have always been present that try to change the doctrines received from the Apostles. In fact, the people who founded the different sects have done precisely this. However, I do not mean to say that the WHOLE Church is in error. Like the parable of the Kingdom in Matthew 13: 24-30, in which the wheat and the weed grow together, in the land of the Church the good and the bad have also been together. But, as Jesus teaches in the parable, we are not the one to pull out the weed. Jesus will do it through His angels at the end of the world (v.41). The reason being we can commit errors (v.29). The problem with those non-Catholics is that they have made themselves the judges of the good and the bad, and separated themselves (rooting themselves out) from the land of the Church, instead of working within her to improve her. Other texts which support that sinners will be present in the Church are: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen...tell it to the Church (Mt.18: 15-17). In a large house there are articles not only gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble (2 Tim.2: 20). How was the integrity of the Church preserved through the centuries? Through what is called the APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. In Acts 1: 26, we read that the Apostles confided the apostolic authority to Matthias. He took the place of Judas as Bishop (see chapter ****). Jesus conferred His authority to His apostles, saying: I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Mt.18: 18). In Jn.20: 23 He gave them the power to forgive sins 4 (See chapter 19), and in 21: 15-17 we read that He made Peter the Principal Pastor for His sheep. He gave him the keys of the Kingdom of the heaven: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ... (Mt.16: 19. See Topic 3.) Paul said to Timothy: And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others (2 Tim.2: 2). Did not Timothy fulfil the duty of teaching everything he had learned? Had there no godly men to maintain the teachings of the Apostles? Know that the Lord rescue the godly men from temptations (2 Peter 2: 9). In the beginning, the early Church conferred upon the successors of the Apostles the power received through Jesus. Paul said to Timothy: Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you (1 Tim.4: 14). That is to say, Timothy had received something special: a gift, a calling from God to be a presbyter and this had not been conceded to him by chance. For this reason, Paul advised them: Do not be hasty in the laying of hands (1 Tim.5: 22).

If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (20:23)

There exists much evidence regarding the Apostolic Succession. The early members of the Church, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, who personally knew the Apostles and were their disciples. taught doctrines that were definitely Catholic. THE CHURCH FATHERS. Who were these people that, in the study of the History of the Church, are recognized with such title? This title is given to those most distinguished ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries of our era. In other words, those that lived from 100 AD to 750 AD. The importance of these people lies in the fact that for the Evangelist, they are also the historical testimony of the Christians belief.5 Examples of these Apostolic Fathers are: a) Ignatius of Antioch. A disciple of the Apostle John. He was converted by John, taught and ordained a priest by him. This is affirmed by the Evangelical book The Daily Love (p.35). In 110 AD, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius speaks of the authority which the bishops received from the Apostles. Speaking of the heresies that do not believe in the Catholic teachings on the Body of Christ, Ignatius admonished them. Remove those people away from the Eucharist and the prayer, because they do not believe that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus who suffered for our sins and that the Father, through His goodness, had resurrected Him (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1). Ignatius was the first Christian author in using the word catholic to express that the Church is universal in all places and times since Christ. As we can see by the way he makes use of this word catholic, we can infer that such expression was common in the Christian world. b) Clement of Rome: disciple of Peter, the fourth bishop of Rome and Pope. (He was probably the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3). In his letter to the Corinthians 96-98 AD, Clement speaks of confessing oneself to a priest and he affirms that the apostles chose successors to prevent the apostasy, and that they established the rule of which, when the bishops died, they would choose others to replace them in the sacred ministry. It is interesting to note the importance of the Bishop of Rome in 88 AD Clement, showing his authority on the other churches outside of Rome, intervened in the problems of the Church of Cornish, even when the Apostle John was still living. In regard to the rule of the apostolic succession we read in his letter: Our Apostles had recognized, through the inspiration from our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be disputes over this title and dignity of the episcopate. For this reason, as if they had perfect knowledge of what was to occur, they established the abovementioned and together they carried forth the norm of which, at their death (the bishops), other approved males would succeed them in the ministry (First Letter XLIV). c) Polycarp of Smyrna: disciple of John. Speaking of Jesus Christ, Polycarp says, Let us serve Him, then, with fear and with all reverence as He Himself commanded us, and also the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us (#3).
5

Historia de la Iglesia de Cristo by Jose Luis Montecillos, an Evangelical Pastor of the Church of God, Ch. Mexico, 1992. In the new chapter (pg. 47), The Church: In the work of the Apostolic Fathers. Unfortunately, either Rev. Montecillos has not read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (which would be culpable through ignorance), or he is a super liar (I hope it is the first reason) because he continues the above quote saying: This proves that the evangelical faith is the faith which they (Apostolic Fathers) fought to defend, the true apostolic faith. In contrast with the Roman Catholics (p.47). Any person can purchase the writings of the Apostolic Fathers to verify the error in Rev. Montecillos sayings. The Fathers do not help the belief of the evangelicals. (See Appendix I.) It is also worth noting that, even though the writings of the Apostolic Fathers go until 750 AD, we have considered only those within the first century after the death of Jesus, so as to give the benefit of a doubt to some (few) evangelical brethren who would not accept the credibility of those much later writings, much less those until the year 750 AD as that of Rev. Montecillos! If we were to quote all the Apostolic Fathers until the this date, the evidence in favor of the Catholic Church would be absolutely overwhelming.

Tested among those of his time, Deacon Polycarp, in manner similar to Stephens during the time of the Apostles,... conforms to (it) as if the Lord had instructed him, the Church also had the discourse on Catechetical instruction. Therefore, he admitted before Christ, of all people, the Catholic ecclesiastical rule for the correct teaching... (Appendix to Saint Polycarp. XII). These men learned those doctrines from the Apostles. They did not invent those on their own. If these Apostolic Fathers were teaching heretical doctrines, why were they willing to die for defending the doctrines, if those were nothing but lies? Would you die for something that is false? They received the truth from the Apostles and guarded it to the point of giving their lives for their beliefs. d) Letter of Barnabas (130 AD): In this letter we can find that the Christians were celebrating the Sunday ritual (the Adventists deny this). and that works form an integral part of salvation (to which the Evangelicals do not agree). e) Didaje (or Didache): The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (90 - 100 AD): In this writing we can see that the Christians were baptizing by immersion and by pouring water on the head. 6 We have two options: either the apostasy occurred or it never did. If it did not occur, then the Church survived intact through the history. But, if we say that the Church did fall into apostasy, then we have to conclude by saying something absurd: JESUS FOUNDED AN APOSTATE CHURCH. Why? because we have just seen that the first and second century Church is the same Church of the New Testament and, if the Early Church was apostate, it would be that Church from the beginning, from the Apostles. If the early Church Fathers were teaching heresies, that means their teachers, the Apostles of Jesus, were not teaching them well. It would follow also that Jesus Christ was really not the Best Teacher, because He could not foresee an apostasy among His students. He would not be an Omnipotent God. What kind of a teacher is this who cant assure that his teaching be clearly understood? In addition, if there was a complete apostasy, we would have a great historical problem: THE SILENCE. No evidence shows that this has happened. On the contrary, all the historical and biblical evidence supports that Catholic Church follows the teachings of the Apostles. The decision regarding which books would be accepted in the cannon, was taken in the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD (confirmed successively in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and supported by the Pope). (See Chapter 10). That is to say, if the Church fell into apostasy soon after the Apostles, we come to another absurd conclusion: it is not possible to trust the Bible because the list of the books was confirmed and preserved through the centuries by an apostate church. To doubt the Church is to doubt the Bible! The early Christians were very careful in protecting the truth which they had received from the Apostles. (See Chapter ****). Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). The Anabaptists wish to return to the New Testament. Their objective was not to reform the existing Church, but to restore the Apostolic Church. According to them, the true Church had disappeared and they had to recuperate it. This counter-historical tendency was being accompanied with an antiintellectual attitude (Latin America In Flames, Pablo A Deiros and Carlos Mraida, two Baptist theologians and historians, Edit Caribe, 1994, p.37). In p.25, they quoted the Apostolic fathers. We must always remember the words of Jesus: Not everyone who says to me: Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mt7: 21). In the following topics, we see that this divine will is in the Bible and which Church most fulfills the divine will. (We can see that the miracles and the prophecies do not exclusively prove the truth -- Mt.7: 22-23.)

One way of being dishonest is to tell a lie. Another way is to speak not the whole truth. Rev. Montecillos, quoted in note #3, mentions that the Didaje speaks of the decrees of baptism (p.49). Yes, it is true. However, he does not mention that what is said is referring to infants. Is this because it is not convenient to his teaching?

3. ON THIS ROCK
According to the plans of God, the name of a person is very important; especially the name of God (See Deut.5: 11; Exod.3: 14 I Am; Is.43: 1; and Rev.3: 5). The Bible teaches us something important: each time when God changes the name of a person, it is not by accidence but for a reason. The name corresponds to a new IDENTITY, FUNCTION AND/OR MINSTRY. In the Old Testament we see examples of this idea of which the name corresponds with the new identity of a person, in this way God prepared us so that we would understand what His Son Jesus was going to do. In the case of Abram, God changed his name to ABRAHAM (Gen.17: 5). The name Abraham signifies father of the nations. Is it true that Abraham is father of the nations? Yes, because God promised him what He was going to do to him: I have made you a father of many nations (Gen.17: 5). Thus, we see that his new name corresponds with his new ministry and identity. In Genesis, we also see that Sarai received the name SARAH which means princess. Once again the change of the name corresponds with he new identity within the royalty. Sarah was going to be mother of kings (Gen.17: 6). To Jacob, God changed his name to ISREAL because he fought with God and with the men, and he won (Gen.32: 28). We read in Isaiah 62: 4 that the entire nation of God received a new name: No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate. But you will be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the Lord will take delight in you, and your land will be married .7 Here it deals with a new relation with God in which He would give it a new identity. This change of name also would affect its position with the political world. (Other example is the actions of Pharaoh in 2 Kings 23: 34.) As we can see, the new name reflects the identity of a person. The same occurs in the New Testament. In Matthew 1: 21, the angel says to Joseph: She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name JESUS8, because he will save his people from their sins. The name given by the angel corresponds to his identity and ministry: Jesus saves. Other example: And they will call him Emmanuel, which means God with us (Mt.1: 23). It is clear that Jesus is God-with-us. We see that in Gods plan, the change of a persons name corresponds to the persons ministry and identity. Jesus follows the way of the Father. In the Bible, Jesus told Simon in Jn.1: 42: You are Simon son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which, when translated, is Peter). It is clear that Cephas and Peter have the same meaning. Now, my dear brethren, look at the bottom of the page in your Bible which corresponds to the numbers that go with Peter and Cephas. It says 1:2 From the word Petras in Aromaic and in Greek, respectively. Therefore Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter, and Peter means rock in Greek. Now, let us examine Mt.16: 13-19 in order to understand the Will of Jesus Christ. First, we see Peter responds to Christ s question regarding His identity. Who do the people say the Son of Man is? It is a question of identity, and Peter answers: You are the Christ. Later, using the same words YOU ARE, Jesus speaks of Simons identity: And I tell you that you are Peter (Mt.16: 18). Jesus changed Simons name to Peter and we recall what happens when God changes the name of a person: it corresponds to his new identity. We saw in Jn.1: 42 (in the footnote at the bottom of the page) that Peter means ROCK. Why, then, did Jesus change Simons name to Peter? In order that it corresponds to his new identity of being the rock. If this is not the case, whats the reason for changing his name? An evangelical answered me by saying that Jesus gave a new name to Peter because He wanted to change his life. However, why didnt Jesus change the names of the rest of the Apostles? They, too, had changed their lives as Jesus told them that
7 8

Hephzibah means My delight is in her and Beulah married. Jesus means Savior

they would be the fishers of men (Mk.1: 17). (In addition, Petras is not a name but a thing.) Jesus changed Simons name, because Peter would be the rock on which He would build His Church. It is obviously indicated here the correspondence between the name and the function of the person. It is clear that in Jn.1: 42, when Jesus calls Simon, He does so looking at him. The English/Spanish words do not capture the essential meaning in Greek. Jesus fixed His gaze upon Peter. John used the word intuitus, no aspexit ni vidit. That is to say to look profoundly with penetrating stare. Jesus was saying something very serious and His stare was penetrating Peters soul. There are Christians who do not accept Peter as the rock. In William Soto Santiagos book we read that the rock is the revelation of Who is The Incarnated Word which Peter had confessed 9. But, then, to them we ask: Why did Jesus change his (Simons) name? Those same people will argue that the Greek language presents two different words: You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my Church. Petros is only a little pebble, quite distinct from a petra which is a rock, they say. Therefore, Peter cannot be the rock of the Church. Jesus is the rock as it is said in 1 Peter 2: 4. This argument is erroneous, however. 99% of the Biblical experts agree that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek; no such distinction exists in Aramaic. Jesus would have said in Aramaic: You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church. The first Apostolic Father who speaks of this is Bishop Papias, and he testifies that the Gospel was written in Aramaic. 10 When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, they did not want to translate Cephas into a feminine name. Instead of saying Petra (rock in English), they musculinized the name: Petros (Peter). In French, the same feminine word pierre (rock) is used for the name Pierre (Peter) 11 An Evangelical biblical commentary says: Peter (petros) is the Greek noun which means stone. The equivalence in Aramaic is cephas.... Some considers that the play on words is significant. You are Peter (petros), which means a little pebble, and on this rock (petra) I will build my Church. Petros is masculine and is used in reference to a man. On the other hand, petra is feminine and is used to refer to a huge rock. Nevertheless, we must remember that Jesus was teaching in Aramaic, and in this language there is no difference between the nouns for stone and rock. 12

Page 3 form the Angular Rock Church. The rock is the revelation which Peter received. The Protestant author of the book El Apostol Pedro, W. H. Griffith Thomas (Edit CLIE, 1984), says that great Protestant scholars (like Dr. Hort) admit that Petras and Petros are the same Apostle Peter (p.31). Nevertheless, the author finishes with the idea that the rock is the confession of Peter. 10 The only ancient literary testimony says that Matthew wrote in Aramaic San Jerome Biblical Commentary, Volume III, (Spain: Cristiandad Edition, p. 171.) See the new 1990 edition, pp 630-631. 11 Note that the translation in La Version Popular (from the same editorial that prints the Reina-Valera) goes like this: You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church. In the Brief Concordance at the back of the Bible published by Biblical Societies, we find that Stone and Roca come to mean the same thing (p. 199). The Protestant biblical commentary: The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible says that evidence exists of the Semantic forms (Aramaic) behind the Greek text in Matthew. It also admits that Peter is the Rock. According to the Protestant biblical dictionary, we read: There exits no difference whatsoever in content between the two words: just as petros can signify the rock, petra can mean the stone as well.... In Mt 16:18 Peter is called <Stone> by Jesus... whether Cephas in Aramaic or petros in Greek, both can mean the stone, the rock. Therefore, in Mt 16:18, petra can be translated for <Stone>, <Rock> (Diccionario Teologico del Nuevo Testamento Vol. IV, by Coenen et. Al. 1971, 1994 pp. 116-117. See the article Roca by W. Mundel). Rafael Aguirre in La Figura de Pedro en el evangelio de Mateo (The figure of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew), from Pedro en la Iglesia Primitiva (Peter in the Early Church), says that Jesus gave Simon the name stone (petros) from the veterotestamentary tradition of the precious stone (p. 49). See Lm 4:1-2, Can 5:14, Is 28:16, Ex 28:17-21, Rev. 21:20. Peter is the stone on which He (Christ) will build His Church. He (Peter) became the Rock because his position among the disciples will stand out... because of the position of Peter in the Early Church.

In Comentario Biblico Mundo Hispano (Hispanic World Bible Commentary), Vol. 14, Matthew, by various authors (see bibliography), 1993, by the same editorial of Case Bautista de Publicaciones, 1993, pp. 222-223. Although at the end they went on to say that the rock is not Peter but his confession (p. 223).
12

In the Greek text of the New Testament, two opinions exist for the word stone: PETRA and LITHOS, as in English: stone and rock. In recourse to the original Greek of the Reina-Valero presented in C.P. Denyers book, we see that in some instances PETRA, which the Reina-de Valera translates as Rock in Mt.16: 18, is also used for little stones as in 1 Peter 2: 8 and Rom.9: 32-33. In these texts PETRA is a little rock which can make one stumble. Proceeding with the argument that the Bible uses the two words for huge rocks and little rocks, we find that Jesus is called LITHOS (1 Peter 2: 4). But this same word is also used to describe little rocks like those with which the men were going to throw at the adulteress woman (Jn.8: 7) or at Jesus (Jn.8: 59). In 1 Peter 2: 8 and 1 Cor.10: 4, we find the two words PETRA and LITHOS, for Jesus. Therefore, when Peter is spoken of, the Rock has nothing to do with the fact whether it is huge or little. The argument of Jesus being the stone in 1 Peter 2: 4 and the argument of Him referring to Himself when He said and on this rock I will build is incorrect, because in 1 Peter 2: 5 all of us are called stones. In another incident Jesus gave Peter another title. Jesus who is the Good Shepherd that cares for His sheep (Jn.10: 11), names Peter Pastor after His resurrection (Jn.21: 15-17). God is the King of Israel, so is David, but only in a subordinate manner. Two famous Protestant biblical experts, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, wrote that Peter is the Rock in Mt.16: 19, and that to say the contrary would only show prejudice. Some people would insist that God is called Rock or Stone, therefore, no other man can be it. But God called Abraham the rock in Isaiah: Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father (51: 1-2). If, after Peter has denied Christ, Jesus would call Peter mud and say to him: you are mud and on this mud I will not build my Church, no Christian brethren would ever doubt that Jesus was referring Himself to Simon-Peter. Nathaniel immediately confessed to Jesus: You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel (Jn.1: 49), simply because Jesus told him that He had seen him under the fig tree. If Jesus was referring Himself (not the Apostles) as the rock to the confession of Peter, why did He not refer Himself as the rock to the confession of Nathaniel? Neither did Jesus say on me, I will build my Church, nor did He say on the confession of Peter I will build my Church. We have to be honest with the Bible and not add extra words. Why did Paul continue calling Peter Cephas if thats not it? If Matthew wanted us to understand that Jesus was the Rock, why didnt he clarify it? Because it is obvious that it meant Peter. We now return to the question: Why did Jesus change Simons name to Peter, when that did not correspond with his identity? It is clear that Jesus is the invisible Rock and that Peter is the visible Rock on which Jesus built His Church. Jesus did not change his name by accident, for that would lead us to confusion. Peter is the Rock, and the Church of Jesus Christ is going to be built on him. The following texts demonstrate Gods plan of building this Church and this Church is visible because it is a family of God (Eph.3: 14). And the families are not invisible. Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph.2: 20). Here the Apostles form the foundation, with Jesus being the Cornerstone upon which the unity of the entire structure is maintained. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev.21: 14). Then the Church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria; and it was strengthened (Acts 9: 31). You are Gods field, Gods building (1 Cor.3: 9).

And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (2 Eph.2: 22) Just as God set the foundation of His nation Israel by calling Abraham rock (remember that God changed Abrahams name), likewise Jesus, in changing Simons name, conferred to him the fundament of the New Israel -- the Church. Peter is father of the New Israel, like Abraham is father of the Old Israel (see Isaiah 51: 1-2). We recall here that the name of Jacob was changed to Israel. In Mt.16: 18, there is one very important message. Jesus spoke of a church, I will build my church. It is singular. It is the only Church which would at that time. Jesus did not say: I will build my churches: James begins with the Baptists, Peter ... There are many churches. Which one is founded on Peter?

4. The Power of the Key

The keys are for opening the door. On the day of the Pentecost Peter was the one who opened the door of the Gospel to the Jewish nation. 13 As expert interpreter in the kingdom of heaven, Peter opened the treasure of both the new and the old things. Gal.2: 11-15; 1 Peter 1: 1; 5: 1, which he placed before the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2) and before the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10). 14 Continuing with Mt.16, let us consider now verse 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . We see that Jesus gave the keys only to Peter, but not to the rest of the Apostles. 15 What are the keys of the Kingdom? Non-Catholic brethren say that it refers to the power to open up missions. On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14: 27; see 1 Cor.16: 9; 2 Cor.2: 12; Col.4: 3). However, these verses mention that it was God who opened the door. In addition, Jesus gave the keys only to one apostle, not to rest. That means that the power which Peter has is not shared with the others, even though the Bible speaks of God opening the doors. Other non-Catholic brethren say that the keys refer to the moment when Peter would begin the preaching on the day of the Pentecost. (See for example Compendium Manual of the Bible by Henry Halley.) We recall that the keys are of the kingdom. It cannot be that Peter opened the Kingdom when he preached on the day of the Pentecost, because it is Jesus who opened the door: Jesus came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, saying: The time has come...The kingdom of God is near (Mk.1: 14-15). Nor will people say, Here it is or There it is, because the kingdom of God is within you (Lk.17: 21). Acts 2, nothing is mentioned about opening the doors. We must be honest with the Bible. Paul speaks of opening the door, but he does not mention the keys which Jesus gave only to Peter. What are those keys? In Mt.16: 19, Jesus fulfills a biblical prophecy: I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a leg into a firm place: he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father (Is.22: 22-23). Now the Church is the house of David (Acts 15: 16). 16 Jesus who has the keys (Rev.3: 7) gives them now to Peter. 17 What is Jesus doing? In addition to fulfilling Isaiahs prophecy, Jesus uses an example from the reality of His time. Each king (David, Solomon, Herods, Cesar) had a palace and the king would choose a steward (see for example Is.36: 22; Gen.41: 40) to whom he would entrust the opening and the
13

Catolicismo ROMANO, by the Evangelical theologian Rev. Dr. Hugo P. Jeter (Editorial CLIE, Espana 1994, p.51). Besides being full of erroneous presentations of the Catholic teachings, this book, printed in 1994, pretends to offer the understanding of the Actual Catholic Church (as the subtitle says), and presents ancient practices such as To receive the elements of the Mass, the participant is led to the front and he kneels before the altar (p.37). This practice has been changed at the Second Vatican Council in 1965. 14 Mr. Raul Caballero Yoccou, an Evangelical, in the book Sobre Esta Roca Edificare Mi Iglesia (On This Rock I Will Build My Church) (Edit Unlit, USA, 1991, 1993, p. 19). Galatians 2:11-15 and 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1 have nothing to do with the keys. In addition, the New Testament never speaks of Peter opening doors. It is God who opens the doors (Acts 14:27; 2 Cor 12 and Col 4:3) directly and/or through Paul (1 Cor 16). Nevertheless only Peter received the keys of Jesus Christ, not Paul. 15 In the booklet La Biblia Catolica tiene la Respuesta (The Catholic Bible has the Answer) by Dr. Oswald Smith, an evangelical theologian (published by Cruzada Mexicana en Cada Hogar), we read: These keys and Power represent the authority which (Christ) gave to ALL THE BELIEVERS in Mt 18:18-19. In any case what is mentioned here is of a kingdom, not of the keys of the Church (p.3). But Jesus did not give the keys to all except only to Peter: to you, He said, and not to all of you. This little booklet is full of errors. 16 See the Concordance at the back of Reina Valera, p. 248. 17 Some people try to argue that Is 22:22 refers to Jesus because the prophet was speaking about the Lord. It is true that Isaiah prophesized Jesus. However, chapter 22:22-23 does not speak of Jesus. The king Ezekiel, the real descendant from the throne of David, makes Eliaquim steward of the palace. The prophecy regarding the keys concerns Eliaquim, not the king who entrusts the keys. In Rev 3:7 Jesus has the keys of David. But He is not the steward. Like the kings in the Old Testament, Jesus -- descendant from the throne of David -- gives the keys to Peter, His steward. (The Collegeville Bible Commentary). Or, do you think Jesus is the steward and there are other messiahs, descendants of David, much greater than Jesus? In short, the keys are the symbol of authority.

closing of the gate of the palace, and the securing of the kings treasures (Is.22: 15). Jesus is the King and He gives this duty to Peter. Peter has the authority of opening and closing (the gate). Therefore, Peter is the responsible who has the access to the King, and he is entrusted with the treasures that Jesus wishes to give to us (mentioned in Mt.6: 20). In Jn.10: 2-3 we read: The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate... . There are two characters: the Pastor and the gatekeeper. The Gatekeeper, of course, has the keys. In short, Jesus has the keys (Rev.3: 7) and He gives them to Peter to build His Church. This, in turn, pertains to Jesus Christ, not to Peter: I will build My Church. The power to bind and to lose in Mt.16: 19 would refer to the religious legal matters of the people of God. It concerns the doctrine (teaching) and the power of making decision; the declaration of what is permitted and what is prohibited. The famous Protestant biblical erudite W.F. Albright (dean of the North American biblical experts) writes in his commentary on Matthew that the authority of Peter to bind and lose will be the fulfillment of the decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplining activities will be guided by the spirit to fulfill the will of Heaven ( Matthew in Anchor Bible, p. 198). In the Old Testament, when God established the Pact with the people of Israel, He guaranteed a living and continual authority with the priesthood of Moses (2 Chron.19: 11; Mal.2: 7). The authority did not end when the Old Testament was written, but continued to safeguard and to authenticate its (the Old Testament) interpretation. The non-Catholic religions do not have the keys or the power to bind and lose. How, then, can each founder of a Protestant church have his interpretation of the Bible? No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets' own interpretation (1 Peter 1: 20). On certain aspects, says Peter, not anyone can understand the letters of Paul: ...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3: 15-16 and chapter ****). Peter showed his authority when he had the rest named another Apostle (Acts 1: 15-22), as well as when he judged Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5: 1-11). We see in the latter text that to lie to Peter is to lie to the Holy Spirit (v.3)! Peter is protected from the confusion in the faith resulted from errors and the false teachings: But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith might not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers (Lk.22: 32). Do you think this desire of Christ that Peter will not fall into error, does not pertain to Peters successors as well? Some brethren would try to make use of the argument that Peter did not have the authority above the rest because in his letter, he speaks of himself as a fellow elder, equal to the rest (1 Peter 5: 1). But this argument ignores the other facts we saw (Mt.16: 18-19; Lk.22: 23; Jn.21: 15-17, etc). The fact is Peter is humble. It is part of his teaching in this letter. Just as the President of a country is also a fellow citizen, a fact which does not strip him off the authority, the Pope is a presbyter like the others, but he has the authority of Peter at the same time (see the following chapter). Mend My sheep Jesus instructed His followers not to expect an easy life. The way the people treated Him, the same way they would with His Church (Mt.10: 25). Jesus knew that His house would be under attack. It would be necessary to have it built on the rock (Mt.7: 24). The prophecy of Micah (7: 14), in which God was going to pasture His flock, is fulfilled in Jn.21: 15. Three times Jesus commanded Peter to take care of, pasture, pastor His sheep. God has always chosen people (Noah, Moses, the prophets, etc) for His cause. However, the religions rebel against Jesus plan when they refuse to be pastured by the successor of Peter. This is similar to a father of a family who names his eldest son to take care of the rest of the children, not necessarily that the later is perfect, nor that the rest of the children would obey him.

The only Church that can trace a chronological link from the present back to Jesus is the Catholic Church, as the list of the popes and the works of the Apostolic Fathers demonstrate. Any honest and well-intended person can verify the fact.18 After His Resurrection, Jesus Christ commanded Peter to pasture all His sheep and lamb (Jn.21: 15-17). My dear brethren, are you one of Jesus sheep? If your answer is yes, then Jesus asked Peter to take care of you! After Jesus had instructed them to be on guard and prepared, Peter asked Lk.12: 42. And Jesus answered him with a question: Who is the servant? In Jn.21: 15-17, we know the identity of this servant. Here is the faithful servant who is entrusted above the household to feed them with the food of the word of God (man does not live on bread alone...the food is to do the will of the Father). Therefore, the food is the word of God (the teaching) and His Will (the laws). Peter is mentioned 196 times in the New Testament. John, in the second, is mentioned only 46 times. Only Jesus is mentioned the most. When the Apostles are named, Peters name is mentioned first, even though he was not the first one called by Jesus. The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians mentions that Peter died in Rome. The archeologists found his remainders. Never has any other city had the claim of possessing Peters bones. Infallibility In 1870 the dogma of the papal infallibility was proclaimed; nevertheless, it was nothing more than the proclamation of a belief which had been almost universally sustained by the faithful Catholics throughout the centuries. 19 Non-Catholics have the impression that the parishioners consider the infallibility of the Pope to mean that he is incapable of making any errors or sinning, therefore, this dogma is a stupidity. Infallibility is not the same as Impeccability. The pope can sin, make error. The infallibility consists in that when the pope is under a certain condition called EX CATERA (see the bottom page), he cannot err in the teachings concerning dogma and moral. A dogma is a decree, a legal or disciplinary prescription like the decisions in Acts 16: 4. In other words, it will never contain any thing false or immoral. 20 We do not say in particular that a pope with or without a council will be holy, well educated, and always prudent. very wise, etc. Though these are excellent qualities, they are not essentials. The important thing is that the Magisterium of the Church (its authority is to teach) is guaranteed by Christ to be protected from error. Thats what (infallibility) means. Jesus recognized the authority of the chair of Moses to teach, to the responsibility of the Scribes and the Pharisees (Mt.23: 2-3): The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you (even though they do not practice what they preach). This chair (seat) was not a mere metaphor to speak of the power. Truly there was a stone seat at the front of the synagogue where the leader with the authority (generally a Scribe) made judgments on doctrinal and legal matters. As the Misna Abote (Jewish commentary) says, the Jews understood that the revelation, which Moses received from God, was transmitted through uninterrupted succession from Joshua down to the elders, the prophets and the Sanhedrin (Acts 15: 21). Just as Jesus recognized the authority of the Magisterium of the Pharisees to interpret the Sacred Scriptures when they spoke from the chair, we recognize the Magisterium of the Church which speaks, not only with the authority of Moses, but with that of Jesus Himself. He who receives you receives Me (Mt.10: 40). He who listens to you listens to Me (Lk.10: 16). And whatever you bind on earth will be
18

I have at hand 16 quotes from the Apostolic Fathers that affirmed Peter was (and died) in Rome. The archeology has affirmed this fact. We would have to admit that some (very few) Apostolic Fathers thought that the rock in Mt 16:18 was also the confession of Peter in v.16. 19 Why am I a Nazarene? by C. William Fisher (in Spanish the title has been translated as Why am I an Evangelical) (USA: Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, 1961), p. 52. 20 Neither does it seek to compare the Pope with the Apostle Peter in those superficial matters such as the way one dresses or lives. It does regard him in the most profound way as the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

bound in heaven (Mt.16: 19). By means of this Gods gift, the purity of the faith received from Jesus will be assured and maintained. In Matthew 24, we read about the servant whom the Master entrusted with the household: Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, My master is staying away a long time, and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt.24: 4551). First, we see that Jesus speaks of the servant as one whom the master has put in charge of ...his household (which represents the Church). This servant can behave well or bad, and if he is disobedient and beat(s) his fellow servants (abuses his authority), he will be punished. However, Jesus does not lose His power through the bad servant, neither does He give us the permission to leave the household in rebellion. Jesus Himself will punish those authorities in the Church. It is not by accident that Jesus chose Judas who later betrayed Him. This He did to prepare us for those bishops and popes who would act likewise in the larger part of history. In the prior chapter, Jesus told His Apostles to listen to the teachings of the Pharisees because they had the authority of the chair of Moses, but not to imitate their actions (Mt.23: 1). This Infallibility dogma is founded on the promise of Christ in which He will be with us until the end of the world. He will never abandon us, as we have seen in the first chapter. Peter received the inspiration from God that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God: Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven (Mt.16: 17). Peter made important decisions in the Early Church, such as the replacement of Judas (Acts 1: 15-26. See 15: 7-12). Without the infallibility, how can we be sure that our interpretations of the Bible are true? We see the problem with such divisions among the Protestants, each asserting that his interpretation is the correct one. Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit, to lead us to the fullest of truth (Jn.14: 16 and 26; Jn.16: 13). How was Christ going to lead us to this truth but through His Church? Concerning the infallibility of the Pope, another author reminds us to differentiate among the types of papal declamations: Christians must learn to distinguish the documents in which the Church promises her infallibility (the dogmatic definitions) from the rest of the documents... Among the latter, it is yet to be precise in distinguishing between the writings of the Pope and the correspondents to the diverse organisms of the Vatican... Not to mention that not all these texts have the same <authority> (Pierre Descouvement, Guia de las Dificultades de la Fe Catolic (Guide of the difficulties of the Catholic Faith), Edit. Desclee de Bouwer, Espana, 1992, pp. 247-248). In regards to the papal documents, they are differentiated as: the Constitutions, the epistles, the Encyclical Letters with concrete addressee but without dogmatic content, Apostolic Letters, Decreed Letters, Letters from the Episcopal Conferences and , letters of personal opinion. Indirectly non-Catholics admit that God can give the gift of infallibility to men. He did so with the authors of the Bible since they believe that the Bible is infallible. He did so to infallible Peter when he wrote the first and second epistle. Then, if God gave the gift of infallibility when He taught through writing, why couldnt He do so when He taught through preaching by mouth? And if this happened to Peter, why cant it be so with his successors, knowing that without (the infallibility), there would have been divisions in the interpretation of the Bible? How can we assure that the interpretation of the Bible be infallible also? The Pope never reveals anything new; he safeguards and expresses faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles. He only defines a truth, and he does it in union with the whole Church. For this reason, the infallibility of the Pope is connected to the infallibility of the Church. The NT authors --Mark, Matthew, John etc. -- were fallible men. If the Holy Spirit could use them to write the infallible Bible, why could He not guarantee the authority of the Church through the centuries

for the interpretation of the Bible?21 Jesus gave an infallible interpretation of the Old Testament (until He instituted the new revelation), then He handed this gift to His Church which continued His work. Moses In the Old Testament, we read something very significant regarding the thoughts of God on the authority which He constitutes: Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of His Cushite wife, for he married a Cushit. Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? they asked. Hasnt he also spoken through us?... (The Lord) said, Listen to my words: When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them. When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam -- leprous... (Num.12: 1-2; 6-10). What do we see here? 1) Moses did something wrong in marrying someone outside Gods nation. 2) The prophet and Moses sister criticized Moses. HOWEVER, THE MORE SERIOUS CRITICISM IS THAT AGAINST MOSES AS THE SPOKESMAN OF GOD. Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Hasnt he spoken also through us? That is to question the role of Moses as the mediator and the spokesman. IT IS TO QUESTION HIS AUTHORITY. It is to question God. (Of course God speaks to all people, but not with the same authority). 3) The punishment of the leprosy. The theologians from Spain (Proceso) John Paul II is diabolic. 4) It is true that Paul criticized Peter (his manner of acting but not his authority). Each day in thousands of Masses on the world, we pray for the Pope in the Eucharistic Prayers. If these prayers do not serve to help him, what is the purpose of intercessory prayers? What are the chances for me if I request someone to pray for me? Even in Jn.9: 18 -- the Pharisees do not believe in the miracles with the blind man, they even spoke with his parents. Nevertheless, they failed to believe. Some non-Catholics Gal.2: 11-14 where Paul answered Peter as a proof that Peter did not have the divine protection from error. But this proves that Paul looked upon Peter as the leader of the Church, that he had to confront him. To be a leader one could do much damage to the flock. In addition, Peter had not spoken infallibly (ex catera). Therefore, he had not defined on any doctrine. The problem was of his action. Paul called to his attention just as a subject could do to his superior. Peter allowed himself to go with the opinion of some Jews who wished to impose the obligation of circumcision. Interestingly, in other occasion Paul did the same thing. He carried out (the circumcision), taking into account of the possible surprise and scandal to the others: Paul wanted to take (Timothy) along on the journey, so he
21

The author of the book Analysis of the Romanism (The Analysis of the Romanism), J.A. Phillips (USA: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones) deals with this subject, but it contradicts itself. Speaking about the Pope, he asserts that the Pope cannot proclaim an infallible dogma because No human language is capable of possessing the sufficient flexibility to express and to transmit the formulas of truth in an absolute and precise manner that it cannot be proven by means of investigation, and be improved in the school of experience. The vocabularies. whether written or spoken, are marvelous things. Nevertheless, words are mere symbols (p.95). On the other hand, when speaking on the Bible, he says, There are two differences between the doctrine and the Protestants sustained infallibility of the Bible...The Holy Spirit is indispensable in enabling (us) to understand the Scriptures (pp.97-98) Is not Mr. Phillips Bible written in human language? How is it sustained as infallible by the Protestants as he affirms if no human language is capable of possessing the sufficient flexibility to express and to transmit (the formulas of truth) in an absolute manner...?

circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area (Acts 16: 3). I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all (Gal.5: 2). Peters admission of his error did not diminish his authority. If anything, it highlighted his humility. It is a sign of a good leader. Some non-Catholics said that the Pope is not the vicar of Christ; the Holy Spirit is. It is true that the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ (Jn.15: 26; 16: 13-15), but that does not exclude Peter. The word vicar means one who has the power and the faculty of a superior and represents him. We are ambassadors in the name of Christ (2 Cor.5: 20). Jesus said He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me (Lk.10: 16). And whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me (Jn.13: 20). It is very interesting to note that to accept or to reject the vicar of Christ is to receive or to reject the Heavenly Father. You welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself (Gal.4: 14). If you want to encounter a perfect Church, you will never achieve this goal. No such Church exists. And, if it were perfect, it would no longer be the moment you entered into the Church. If it were perfect in the first century, which congregation would she choose? The Corinthians? The Laodicians? The Galatians? All of them had their own problems. The challenge is to love (to tolerate in some instances) the Church which Christ founded even with all the imperfections she may have. It would be interesting to ask many non-Catholics who gives their pastors the infallibility in their interpretation of the Bible. Brethren, don't tell me that I accept Jesus as my Savior and Lord if you do not want to accept His Will. Jesus said: Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord (Allelujah, Glory to God, or other similar words) will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mt.7: 21). And His Will is that He gave the authority to Peter and to the Church. Jesus desires that Peter cares us for.

5. MORE ON THE PRIMACY OF PETER

As we have seen, God changed the name of Abram to Abraham, which means father of the nations, because he would be the father of the people of Israel: for I have made you a father of many nations (Gen.17: 5). For this same reason, the Old Testament calls Abraham the rock or, in other words, the foundation of the people of God. Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord: Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father (Is.51: 1-2) Jesus Christ did the same with Simon. He changed his name and called him rock so that he would be the foundation of the new people of Israel. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church (Mt.16: 18). In this book I am restricted to deal with some important aspects of Mt.16: 18-19. 22 We begin with verse 13 of this chapter. The first thing that we notice is the place where Jesus decided to entrust Peter with this special authority: in Caesarea of Philippi. In this city one can find the foot of the Hermon mountain which was previously named Panias (or Banyas), for its relation with Pan --the pagan gods of the nature. Therefore, there were many sanctuaries and pilgrimages. One of those Herodian kings (tetrarch) -- Herod Phillip -- erected a sanctuary in honor of the emperor (Ceasar): He erected in his honor a very beautiful temple, of white stone (The Antiquities of the Jews, Josefo Flavio, Book XV 10:3; BI II 10:7). The cult towards Ceasar as divine (God) had only just begun. Hence, he changed the name of the city in his honor. Caesarea Philippi, which means city in honor of Ceasar, made by Philip. In Ceasarea Philippi there is a huge rock formation which is 70 meters high and almost 200 meters wide. It was called The Rock of Ceasarea Philippi. On top of it was the Sanctuary of Pan. Here Jesus asks: Who do people say the Son of Man is? While Ceasar seemed to be the lord and master in this place, but what do you say? Jesus asked His apostles. Simon Peter answered: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Simon is saying: you are the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed. The Israelites had three persons who were anointed with holy oil, something physical which represented the invisible Holy Spirit. THE PROPHET, anointed to proclaim the truth. He would impart the word of God. THE PRIEST, anointed to impart grace (divine life of God) and forgiveness (sin is death, the forgiveness is the reconciliation with the God of life). THE KING, anointed to safeguard a just administration. There arose a Jewish tradition in which a day the Messiah would come and He would unite the three functions: Priest, Prophet and King, in one person only. Jesus came and proclaimed to be the Way (king), the Truth (Prophet) and the Life (Priest). Peter recognized these three things in Jesus Christ when he called Him the Messiah. Jesus replied to him: Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah (v. 17). There exists a parallel between what Peter says to Jesus: You are the Christ, son of God and what Jesus says to Peter: You are Simon, son of Jonah. When it is spoken in this manner, it mentions something of the genealogy, which is sort of the sovereign, formal language, that is to say, it is real language. Similarly, Jesus saw in Peter the three traits: prophet, king and priest. Jesus affirms that Peter is the prophet who reveals the truth when he proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah, and that this capacity does not come from Peter: for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven . Peter was neither more intelligent nor great loved. Jesus recognized that, through this revelation, the Heavenly Father had chosen Peter. As such Peter participates in the prophetic role of
22

Some of the following notes come from a conference given by Gerry Matatics, Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17181, San Diego, CA 92177. A part of the Jewish sources in the following section is extra-biblical which form part of the oral tradition of the interpretation. For more about this tradition read Evangelio y tradici n de Israel (The Gospel and the Tradition of Israel), Matthieu Collin & Pierre Lenhardt, EVD, Espa 1991.

Jesus, in the proclaiming of the truth and the resolving of the Christological controversial, Who do people say?...Some says you are... In v.18 Jesus says that Peter also has the authority and the role of the priest: you are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of Hades will not overcome it . How? In those poetic texts of the Old Testament, there are examples about the Jewish tradition in which exited the idea of a stone, rock and/or a threshing floor (threshing machine) that formed something important in the history -- the EBEN SHETIEL -- the fundamental rock. It was seen as the most ancient thing in the world, the first thing created by God. Therefore, it was the most sacred. The threshing floor of Atad -- it was there where Joseph stopped for seven days to lament (for his father) when his fathers remaining were being brought for burial (Gen.50: 10). The Philistines robbed the threshing floor (1 Sam.23: 1). The plagues end when David buys a threshing floor/machine (2 Sam.24: 15-25 and 1 Chron.21). David built an altar on top of a threshing floor. When David returned the Ark captured by the Philistines, God had to sustain the Ark when it trembled while passing across the threshing floor (2 Sam.6: 6). In other words, the threshing floor had some significance. In Genesis, we read that earth was covered with water: Now the earth was formless and empty (Gen.1: 2) because water is formless, is chaotic. By the Spirit, God began to separate the waters. The first which came out from the water (arose from it) was a dry ground, the land (Gen.1: 9), seen as a high summit (and, therefore, near to God and very sacred): the Mount Sion. It was here that God made the Eden. The Psalms speak of the rock by which the sacred light shines: the SEHKINA. As a place of cult, the rock is also the place of divine revelation (Judges 6: 20-21 and 13: 19). (Diccionario Teolgico del Nuevo Testamento (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), Coenen, Beyreuther and Bietenhard, Sgueme, Espaa, 1994.) In the Jewish Cosmology, the place of Seoul (Greek: HADES) is below the earth. This subterranean place is obscure, decomposed and chaotic; there exists always the threat of the water recovering the earth and plunged it in chaos (Ps 18:16). To further elaborate, there is a representation of the world as understood by the Jews: Jews were not mariner people like the Gentiles (the Philistines). For them the sea meant the evil (remember the torments of the sea with the Apostles). Jews identified themselves with the land (promised) of Israel. God withheld the source of chaotic water of Seoul with a rock. The gates of Seoul were like the fauces of a monster which engulf the earthly things. It is of this foundation earth mentioned above that God creates Adam (which means earth in Hebrew). Adam built an altar and made a pact with God (Hosea 6: 7). Also, in the same place Jacob erected an altar after his fight with the angel (and he received a new name: Israel) (Gen.28: 18). Simon Peter received a new name to correspond with the Church (like new Israel). The rock came out of the water and was made a mountain -- The Mount Moriah where Solomon constructed the temple (2 Chron.3: 1). The Ark of alliance is placed on top of it. In the last days the mountain of the Lords temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills (Is.2: 2). May the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth, bless you from Zion (Ps.134: 2). In addition, according to the Jewish tradition, it was from this rock of Eden where God says: let there be light. And behind this rock was the darkness. Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths. The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Is.2: 3). The Lord roars from Zion and thunders (truth, light) from Jerusalem (Amos 1: 2). This is what the Lord says: I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the Lord Almighty will be called The Holy Mountain (Zach.8: 3).

The symbolism of the rock was not only a play of words with the name of Peter; it also comes from the tradition of the Old Testament and even prior to that. In Is 28:16 re read: See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation (Is.28: 16). The belief in this period was that the capital and the principal temple was built on the Fundamental Stone of the entire universe. In creating the world, the first thing that God did was to place a firm stone, a stone that covers and plugs the subterrainial chaotic waters. This becomes the center on which the rest of the universe is created. The capital and/or the temple were constructed on top of this Fundamental Rock. Isaiah, when speaking of Mount Sion, the Mountain on which the Temple of Jerusalem was built, uses the same image of the rock -- the Center of the Earth, the sure foundation on which Yahweh has built the entire structure of His city. In a similar manner, Jesus uses this symbolism to speak of the sure foundation of which the community of the Church is constructed. 23 Jesus asks the Apostles Who do you say that I am?, and the replies He receives are obscure: you are John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah... Until the light (truth) came through Peter, the Rock. Jesus recognizes that Simon is the rock through which the light emits. He (Simon Peter), therefore, will be the rock on which He will be His Church. He will be the threshing floor that would have the priestly function by his relation with the altar, the offering (Dam, Jacob, David) and the temple. And this rock will guard the gate of Seoul/Hades, with its chaos, closed. Peter is the prophet who guards the truth and the priest who protects the divine life which Jesus entrusted to the Church through the Sacraments, so that the chaos of sin will not destroy us. In v.19 Peter is made King or, at least, shares the royalty with Jesus in being His majordomo, by given the power of the keys of the kingdom. Only he has the keys to fasten and to loosen, which is another way of saying to open or to close. The rest will have this power but only he has the keys, like the first minister. He is prefigured in Eliakim from Is.22: 2off as we have seen. In Is.22, Eliakim re-employed Shedna (the evil majordomo). God would clothe him vestment of authority (Is.22: 21) to govern, and he will be like a father (Patriarch). I will place on his shoulder the key to the house (family and kingdom) of David. There his office is established: I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father, (a throne as symbol of authority) (Is.22: 23). Verse 24 is important because it shows that this office was transmitted through dynamic succession to the first-born (or to the other if the first-born has fallen in sin): All the glory of his family will hang on him; its offspring and offshoots... This dynasty which prefigures the apostolic succession will not be perfect (v.25) because it is only a type of the New Covenant. Jesus is the son of David and He makes Peter His Prime Minister. On top of the Rock He establishes a sanctuary dedicated to the Lord God, the emperor. Now on the Rock (Peter), Jesus would construct the true sanctuary tot he true Master and Lord: the Anointed, King of the Jews. With Him the spiritual dynasty of the new Israel begins: the Church of Jesus Christ.

What does the Early Church say?

In the following well see that the early Christians had the same believes like the Catholic Church. All the faithful lived a few more years after the Apostles. Some were ordained by the Apostles. The most ancient Catechism is the Didaj written around 70 AD. We divide the writings, according to the doctrine. We have mentioned Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Esmirna (see Ch.2), both of them were disciples of John the Apostle, and Clement of Rome who was converted by the Apostle Peter. Now we present other Apostolic Fathers and other Christians. (We will try to offer at the end of each topic what the Early Church said regarding it). The Pastor of Hermas 160 AD
23

From Turning Point at Ceasarea Philippi, Donald Senio, Credence Cassettes, 1986.

Justin Martyr wrote in 150-155 AD: The following is from his first book entitled Apologia. There are some quotes from his book Dialogue with Trypho. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Some other Apostolic Fathers are mentioned with date (in parenthesis) from much later period, around Constantine era, and the work in which the text can be found. It is not possible to mention even half of all the Fathers, much less to quote them. One excellent book which presents the quotes of the Apostolic Fathers by topic (for example the Sacraments, Works and Church) is La Predicacin del Evangelio en los Padres de la Iglesia (The Preaching of the Gospel in the Fathers of the Church), by Miguel Peinado P., Edit B.A.C., 1992. 1) The Church was called Catholic for the first time in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans , Ignatius of Antioch. 2) Conserve the traditions and Peter in Rome. Polycarp (#17) Ignatius (Letter to the Philippians 7: 1): the Apostles evangelized us. The presbyters and the deacons were constituted according to the wish of Jesus Christ through His Holy Spirit. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans ): Where Jesus is, there the Catholic Church is. Without the bishop it is illicit to baptize. Clement (Letter to the Corinthians 5: 1, p.76): Paul and Peter were persecuted until death in Rome. Clement (p.113): The Apostles followed the will of God. They went about preaching, baptizing and establishing those who were their first fruits, after they have tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops (vigilant)...The Apostles conferred the work of Christ to their followers. Clement (114): The Apostles, by the inspiration of our Lord Jesus Christ, had perfect foresight of what was to come. They established in Him the abovementioned and together they imposed upon them term of office which, when they died, other selected men would succeed (them)in the ministry. 3) Peter died in Rome Clement: in The Letter to the Corinthians (5: 1) Peter was persecuted until death in Rome. Ignatius: in The Letter to the Romans, 4: 3. Irenaeus (180): in Adversus Heareses, 3, 3: 2 and 3: 1. Gaius (198): in Disputation with Proclus, in a work of Eusebius (History of the Church, 2, 25: 5) Dionysius of Corinth (166): in The Letter to Soter of Rome , in a work of Eusebius (History of the Church, 2, 25: 8) Tertullian (207): in Against Marcion, 4,5: 1. Clement of Alexandria (190): mentioned in Eusebius (History 6, 14: 1) Peter of Alexandria (306): in Penance, Canon 9. 4) The Primacy of Peter Tertullian (213): in On Monogamy , 8: 4. Clement of Alexandria (190): in Who is the Rich Man who is Saved? 21: 3-5. Origen (244): in Homilies on the Book of Exodus, 5: 4. Cyprian (250): in The Letter to Those Who Are Left to Assist , 33 (27): 1. In The Letter to Florentius Pupianus, 66: (69): 8. Ephraim (338): in Homilies, 4: 1. Cyril of Jerusalem (350): in Catechist Readings, Catechesis, 2; 19.

6. THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings [traditions in other Bible] , just as I have passed them on to you (1 Cor.11: 2). Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall (1 Peter 1: 10). Brethren, we have seen in the third chapter that Jesus Christ chose Simon Peter so that he would be the rock and he would carry the keys of the kingdom. Now you may ask me, How does the present Pope have the same power as Peter? The answer to this question is that this power was passed on to the popes through the history. This transfer was prefigured through the prophets Elias and Elijah and Elisha in 2 Kings (Ch. 2: 9; 13-14): When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you? "Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit, Elisha repliedHe picked up the cloak that had fallen from Elijah and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the cloak that had fallen from him and struck the water with itit divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over. The company of the prophets (from Jericho), who were watching, said, The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha. And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground before him (2 Kings 2: 9; 13-15). However, we must honestly and definitely confront to the clergy idea that it, in the actual sense, is not found in the New Testament. In no place do we encounter that a church is entrusted to a man.the clergy serves to obscure effectively the truth that Christ is the Head (Eph.1: 22), and in some cases, to deny it entirely.24 In the New Testament (Acts 1: 15-22) we read that Peter, as the leader among the Apostles, stood up and spoke the words. He said that the Apostles had to elect another apostle to replace Judas. Notice that nobody opposed him about the idea. None of them said: Peter, we do not have the right or the power to do this, because only Jesus can choose the twelve. Nobody protested, because all recognized the authority of Peter and of themselves to transfer the power and the authority which they had received from Jesus , and they did so in prayers (just as the same today). The Apostles elected Matthias and transfer to him all the authority and the responsibility of serving the people of God as apostle and, as such, as bishop. May another take his office in Greek word is EPISCOPOS. The words of Peter were based on that which the Holy Spirit had spoken: Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning JudasMay another take his place of leadership (Acts 1: 16 and 20). Will it not be absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit, who enlightened Peter to elect a successor to Judas, later contradicts Himself in replacing the rest of the Apostles and their successors when they had passed away? Why is it a problem for us to think for a successor to Peter when we have no difficulty in accepting the Apostles choosing a successor to Judas? Since that election, Matthias was considered as an apostle: The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev.21: 14). The New Jerusalem (the Church) has the foundation with the 12 Apostles. It is not possible that Judas is included here, because he committed suicide; instead it is Matthias. According to Irenaeus, the second bishop of Lyon, Peter reemployed Linus who was mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21. Irenaeus (180 AD) testifies that the Christians conserve the memory of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. Jesus had commanded the Apostles to go and preach to the whole world (Mt.28: 19-20), and that the fruit of their preaching would remain permanent: You did not choose me, but I chose you to go and bear fruit fruit that will last (Jn.15: 16). Without electing successors it was impossible that the Apostles could
24

Cristo Ama a la Iglesia (Christ Loves the Church), by the Protestant William MacDonald, Paginas Orientadoras, Mexico, 7th edition, 1961, p. 36-37. Mr. MacDonald never gives us even a single example how, according to him, the clergy servesin some cases to deny [that Jesus is Head of the Church].

preach to the whole world and that their fruits would last: to prepare Gods people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph.4: 12). These are the tasks that Jesus has entrusted to Peter: to pastor the sheep, to strengthen the brethren in the ministry (Lk.22: 32), to bind and to loose, etc.. These tasks cannot end with Peters death because the Church, which would need such services and functions, lives on. If the authority of the Apostles was only for themselvesWhy had Jesus given such power to Peter and then desired that Peter would not pass on the power? In the first 250 years of the Church, the Roman emperors tried to destroy the Church by means of persecutions. In the first 200 years, every single pope, except one, was martyred. The Romans knew who was the head of the Church! For this reason, the emperor Decio (249-251 AD) said, I would prefer to receive news from a rival of the throne to receiving it from other bishop in Rome. Therefore, the power that Jesus had given them was not only referred to them, but also to their successors in the ministry. In this way, the INTEGRITY OF THE JESUS TEACHINGS was transmitted through the centuries. They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship (Acts 2: 42). Obey your leaders and summit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account (Heb.13: 17). In Titus1: 9, Paul exhorts what the bishop would be -- He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he encourage by others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. In 1 Tim.4: 14, we see another example of transferring the power: Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of the elders laid their hands on you . In Acts we also read (Paul and Barnabas) appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord in whom they had put their trust (Acts.14: 23). So then, men ought to regard us servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God (1 Cor.4: 1).25 In Acts Ch.1, Peter told the Apostles that to elect a successor, the successor ought to be one who had been with Jesus and the apostles (v. 21-22). Why this requisite? -- so that he would be a faithful testimony to Resurrection of the Lord and to His teachings. As such, the Apostles, in choosing and re-employing the bishops, looked for men who believed in the same doctrine so as to preserve the Faith. This is the principle of the Apostolic Succession that we have dealt with in the second topic.26 Jesus knew that false prophets and false teachings would arise. He desired that His Church would guard the truth, and that this Church would remain VISIBLE and CONCRETE like a body (Eph.1: 22-23), so that people would know where to discover the doctrinal truth and the salvation (Is.2: 2-3). The Church is the column and the bulwark of the truth (1 Tim.3: 15). If this Church was invisible and was merely a gathering of people with their different beliefs and denominations, how are we to preserve and transmit faithfully the teachings of Christ through the centuries?

25

Notice that the terms priests, presbyters, elders mean the same thing. The early Christians did not use the term priests so as not to confuse the people with the Jewish priests.
26

See Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians (42:4-5; 44:1-3), Hegesippos (180 AD) work Memory (4:2:1) and Irenaeus (190 AD) Adversus Haereses (3:3; 5:20:1). In the book Las Leyes de Mxico y la Iglesia Catlica Romana (The Laws of Mexico and the Roman Catholic Church) by Dr. Luis Rodriguez N. (Guadalajara, 1968), the author tries to convince us that the actual Pope is the representative of Satan (see Chapter 13). His reasoning comes from the words of Jesus to Peter: Out of my sight, Satan! (Mt 16:23). We see two problems in the exegesis with which Dr. Rodriguez makes use of this text. In the first place, On the other hand, it is clear that Jesus was not calling Peter Satan because if Peter had been the devil, He would have prohibit Peter to be His disciple. In addition, Peter calls Jesus Lord (v. 22), something that the devil would never call of Jesus. Peter received a direct revelation from the Father. for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven (Mt 16:17). Therefore, Jesus is using the original meaning of Satan not so much as the devil but as one who puts the things of God to the test. You are a stumbling block to me (v. 23). The Hebrew root of the name Satan indicates the placing of the obstacle. (See Job 1:6-12). Even though Peter was speaking to Jesus out of love, so that He would not go to Jerusalem to die (v. 22). Peters thought is not of God but of hindrance.

The fact that we do not know the details of all the functions of the distinctive offices in the early Church does not mean that those offices which Paul and Luke speak about (in 1 Thess.5: 12 and Acts 14: 2-3) do not have authority. In the beginning the words presbyters and bishops were interchangeable because they required time to define the technical terms precisely. Every high priest taken from among the men is constituted to represent them in everything that is referred to God, to present offerings and sacrifices for their sins; to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray. After all, he himself is full of weaknesses. 27 Because of that weakness he needs to present offerings for the forgiveness of sin, both for himself and for the people. Nobody crowns himself with this honor; only he who is called by God, just as it was with Aaron (Heb.5: 1-4). We see that the author of this epistle speaks in the present tense and not just about the priests in the Old Covenant.

What does the Early Church say?

1) The Successors of Peter as Pope Irenaeus: Adversus Haereses , 3:3:3. Tertullian: The Demurrer against the Heretics , 32:2 Cyprian: The Unity of the Catholic Church , 4 and Letters 59:14. Firmilian: Letters 74 [75]: 17 The Little Labyrinth [211 AC]: Eusebius (History 5:28:3). Eusebius: History of the Church, 3:4:9-10. Pope Julius I [341 AD]: Letter in support of Athanasius found in Athanasius (Apology against the Arians (20-35). Council of Sardica [342 AD] canon 3. Of Milevi [367 AD] The Schism of the Donastist , 2:2. Epiphanius [374 AD] Panacea against all the heresies , 27:6. 2) Apostolic Succession Clement of Rome: Epistle to the Corinthians, 42:4-5; 44:1-3. Hegesippus [180]: Memoirs, 4:22:1. Irenaeus [180-199]: Adversus Haereses , 3:3:1 and 5:20:1.3.

27

The priest is not perfect. We accept the Bible as our all-sufficient rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim 3:15-17)

7. IS THE BIBLE THE ONLY PRECEPT OF THE FAITH?

Ezra opened the bookThe Levites Jeshua, Baniinstructed the people in the lawThey read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read (Neh.8: 5-8). This is the most important topic. We begin with some of the Protestants writings: For the Evangelicals, the Scripture is our only precept of faith and practice (Deiros, Paul and Carlos Mraida Latinoamrica en Llamas (Latin America in Flames), Edit Caribe, USA, 1994, p.188) The Evangelical investigator Jorge Elderly writes: The reality is that the Bible is the maximum authority for the Christians (Pastores que abusan (Pastors who abuse), Edit Ministerios Bblicos de Restauracin, Mxico, 1994 p. 103). But, who guarantees his interpretation? We also read: Of course we affirm the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and they quote 2 Tim 3:15-16 and 2 Peter 1:18-21 (Ibid. p.224). The biblical teaching is our only precept of faith and practice (Ibid. p.232). The Protestants believe that the Bible is their only guide for the faith and the life (2 Tim 3, 16, 17; Deuteronomy 12:32). (Cul es la Diferencia? (What is the difference?) by Fritz Ridenour. Libros CLIE, Espaa, 1967, p.49). 28 The Bible is the model that patterns our decisions and helps us to form our opinions regarding all the aspects of life(2 Tim 3:16-17)is the only true authority on which we rely 29 The first thing that I want to remind and to underline for the reader is that the author, as his Church teaches, believes totally in the inspiration of the Bible. And, with the help of God, he tries to live completely in accordance to its precepts. Since Martin Luther, Protestants teach the so-called Sola Scriptura (the Bible only), the belief that outside the Bible there is no revelation or authority. If something is not explicitly stated in the Bible, it is not from God. The Scriptures are sufficient for Christian to be his Regula Fidei (rule of the faith). The Scriptures themselves draw their own authenticity and interpretation, without depending on any other norms. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the material sufficiency and the formal sufficiency of the Scriptures. It teaches the first sufficiency -- that everything we need for the Faith is explicitly or implicitly in the Bible. However, it condemns the formal sufficiency of the Bible, which says that the interpretation of the Bible is so clear about every religious aspect. Neither the Tradition nor the Church is necessary for the understanding of the Bible. Peter in his second letter affirmed the Catholic position on the formal sufficiency (see the writings in the later pagers). The reality of the many divisions among the Protestants in their history shows us that the formal sufficiency is an error.
28

Does God want the people to read and interpret the Bible?the idea seems clear. Every person must read AND INTERPRET the Bible BY HIMSELFThe Protestants respect the preacher and the instructor or for their years of studies. Nevertheless, they believe that they are free to accept or to reject the teachings of the latter. They believe that God speak directly to each person from the pages of His Word and that the Holy Spirit HELPS EACH ONE TO UNDERSTAND the meaning of the Gods message. (Cul es la Diferencia? (What is the Difference?), pp. 43-44. The emphasis is mine). The Protestant teaching is that when a person is reading the Bible with great care, the Holy Spirit guides him so that he will understand the truth. 29 Fuerza Para Vivir (Strength for Living) by Jamie Buckingham. Arthur Moss Foundation, corrected edition, 1984, pp. 9 and 114. We accept the Bible as our all-sufficient rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim 3:15-17) (Assemblies of God, Who we are and what we believe, Gospel Publishing House (revised edition, 1985, p.19). Nevertheless, there are Protestants who, like Catholics, do not believe in Sola Scriptura. One famous person is Ernst Kaseman in his Essays in New Testament Themes (pp. 188-190)

Before we proceed with the Protestant teaching on Sola Scriptura, we have to clarify what The Word of God in the Bible mean. 30 In Is.55 we read that the Word of God is His blessing that He sends us (v. 1011). Jesus is the Word of God when He was on earth (Jn.1: 1-2). The Word is received also by the ears: when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe (1 Thess.2: 13). Finally, just as in the introduction, we clarify that the Church does not have authority over the Sacred Scriptures; she bears witness to them. It was impossible to have the Bible as the only authority for the Christians, so much so the Bishops decided to canonize (to decide which Books are inspired and are the New Testament). (See Chapter 9.) It was the preaching and the authority of the Church, not the reading of the Bible, that makes converts and maintains the Faith. If the Bible teaches Sola Sciptura, THE BIBLE ITSELF OUGHT TO TEACH THIS. The proof has to be within the Bible (even though the argument will be circular), not without. 31 The Texts That The Protestant Brethren Use to Prove Sola Scriptura John 5: 39: Study the Sciptures diligently. First of all, this does not say that the Bible is sufficient. According to Greek, Escrudinen is not a command but only a word in active voice. Diligently study the Scriptures to testify Acts 17: 11: Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true . However, this also does not say that the Bible alone is sufficient. What is in Acts 17:11 is that the Bereans are noble because they accepted the Apostle Pauls message, and verified it with the Sciptures. But, the Scriptures they had were the Old Testament! John 20: 31: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . This text tells us that the Bible was written to help us in our belief. It does not say that the Bible is everything we need, or that it is absolutely necessary for the belief because, as we have seen, the early Christians did not have the New Testament until many years later. You, brethren, can share your testimony of Jesus Christ with a person, without having the Bible with you while you are speaking, in such a way that he may believe in Jesus. The Bible itself says, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (Romans 10: 17). The preaching by mouth lasts forever. The word of the Lord lasts forever. And this is the word that has been announced to us through the Bible (1 Peter 1: 25). 1Cor.4: 6: Do not go beyond what is written . Here, as the reformer Calvin himself said (who believed in Sola Scriptura) in referring to the Book of the Life of God. Calvin admitted that this text did not help his teaching. In addition, if Paul were referring himself to the Scriptures, he would be speaking of the Old Testament (and, perhaps, one or two letters which he had written). The New Testament as we have today did not exist then. Prov.30: 5-6: Every word of God is flawless. This does not indicate that (the word of God) is sufficient or that it is necessarily the written word. Rev.22: 18: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (see verse 19 also). However, the book that John spoke about is the book of the Revelation (the words of the prophecy of this book). The Bible did not exist until a few centuries later. Moreover, Deut.4: 2 says Do not add to what I command you In that case, did the revelation end with the Torah? Are we, then, not to believe in the New Testament? 2 Tim.3: 16-17 The principal text for supporting Sola Scriptura is 2 Tim.3: 16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

30

I am thankful for, and do recommend, the audio cassette of Patrick Madrid (Catholic Answers) in his debate with James White on this topic. 31 The Bible is infallible and the Bible is the only rule of Faith because it says so; being infallible when it says it is infallible, it has to be true: It is infallible.

The problem with this text is that, once again, it does not mention that the Bible is sufficient for salvation. The man of God may be thoroughly equipped does not affirm that the Bible alone would be necessary. To be thoroughly equipped, to be perfect, the Bible speaks of doing something else as well. In Mt.19: 21 we read: If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions Paul says that what makes a man perfect: is listening to the teaching (Col.1: 28) and praying for the Christians (Col.4: 12). James preaches similar message to the one we have seen in this text of Paul to Timothy (3: 16-17): Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything (James 1: 4). Here we see that perseverance makes us perfect. Therefore, which of these makes us whole, makes us perfect? All of them can have the same meaning that the separated brethren give to 2 Tim.3: 17. In fact, when Paul wrote this to Timothy, only the Old Testament existed. Paul said that the Bible was useful, but he did not say that it was sufficient. Air is useful for living but it is not sufficient. We need to eat and drink liquid. If not, we die. In the spiritual life we need the oral Tradition of the Church. The Bible does not teach that it is the only authority for salvation. If it was the case, it will be a big and serious problem for the millions of people who have no access to a Bible, who cannot read, or do not have a Bible that is translated into his language. If we take Pauls letter literally when he says all Scripture isuseful for teaching, rebuking , what would we do with some of the biblical passages that are not very much inspiring like, for example, Happy is hewho seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks ? (See Numbers 10: 22-29 and Deut.14: 10-18). Exod.21 says that if the master beat his slave and the slave recovers after a day or two, the master is not to be punished. Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to deathAnyone who curses his father or his mother must be put to death (Exod.21: 12-21). Perhaps some parents ought to follow this teaching! In the Old Testament we read that, in the Ark, the Israelite guarded the mana (which prefigured the Eucharist, Exod.16: 32-34), the book of the Law (the Word of God), and the staff of Aaron (Numbers 17: 1-10). Why the staff? Because it represented the authority of the prophets in interpreting the Word of God (Numbers 17: 10). This authority would much later arrive in the hands of the Scribes and the Pharisees (Mt.23: 2). Later, Jesus Himself had the authority of not only interpreting the Scriptures, but changing them as well: You have heard that it was saidBut I tell you (Mt.5: 21-44. See Lk.24: 27). Afterwards, Jesus gave His authority to His Church: He who listens to you listens to me (Lk.10: 16). The Church would become the pillar and foundation [defender] of the truth (1 Tim.3: 15). If Sola Scriptura is true it ought to be found in the Old Testament, but what we see in it is that God related Himself with His people through mediators of the Covenant beginning with Abraham, Isaac, continuing with Moses and the prophets. They had the authority, represented by the staff of Aaron, to interpret the Word of God. Did Moses make sure that each Israelite would have a copy of the Torah? No. The Jews gathered together on Saturdays to listen to the preaching and the explanation of the Word of God. If the Old Testament was completely sufficient for the Jews, why did Jesus change (the teachings) in Mt.5 (vv.21-44): You have heard that it was saidBut I tell you Why would we need the Holy Spirit to bring us all the truth if the Scriptures are sufficient? It is certain that the Bible gives us hope (Rom.15: 4), but it does us everything. It is God who gives us the salvation through His Son, not through the Bible. Jesus admonishes us that whenever a problem arises between two people, they should go to the Church, not to the Bible (Mt.18: 17). The Church gave us Jesus words: He who receives you receives me (Mt.10: 40). The majority of the books in the Bible do not affirm that they are inspired. The Bible does not give us an appendix or a list of the books of the New Testament. How, then, do we know which books are the inspired ones? How do we know that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew? Even though the Apostle is mentioned twice within the text (Mt.9: 9 and 10: 3), it is never mentioned in the text of the Gospel who the author was. We have the title (The Gospel according to St. Matthew) but this does not form part of the text. Rather, this title was added years later. 32 Matthew must have told the Church that he wrote the Gospel and this information was passed on orally through the years. The oral Tradition is
32

The first attribution to Matthew as the author is affirmation of Papia, Bishop of Hierapolis, en Frigia, cir.130 AD, quoted by Eusebius in the 4th Century (Comentario Bblico de San Jernimo III (Biblical Commentary of St. Jerome III) , p.170)

the source of Revelation of God. Through Irenaeus, an Apostolic Father who in his book Adversus Haereses (3:1,1), we know that John wrote the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus mentions this for the first time. How did he know this if there was no oral tradition to give him this information? We know which books are inspired. We know that Matthew wrote the first Gospel BECAUSE THE CHURCH TOLD US SO.33 Therefore, we need the authority of the Church in addition to the Bible. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (Eph.4: 11). Why did Jesus institute these ministries if the Bible alone is sufficient for everything? Why do we need teachers if the Bible can be interpreted by itself? Why couldnt the Ethiopian comprehend the prophet Isaiah in Acts 8: 3-34 without the help of Philip? In the book of Romans, Paul speaks of bringing Christ to the people through preaching, not through bringing them a book. And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? (He does not say read). And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Rom.10: 14-15). In Acts 10: 5, Cornelius, desiring to know the truth of God, received the order from the angel not about consulting the Bible (Old Testament), but about looking for Simon who has now a new nickname Peter. When Saul asked, What would you want me to do (Acts 9: 5-17). God did not tell him to read the Scriptures. Instead, God told me to get up and go to Ananias, representative of the Church. Catholics and Protestants believe that the general Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, who was probably John. Why in the Bible does it teach that the revelation ends with the Apostles? The Bible never says that. The Church defined this rule. If the Apostles taught that the Bible alone was necessary, why did John write the following? I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete (2 Jn.12. Also 3 Jn.13). For Catholics, the Bible and the Tradition are the way that God revealed Himself. 34 These two compose the word of faith and good doctrine ( 1 Tim.4: 6) that, together, they form the Principle of faith, transmitted through written words (the Bible) and oral preaching. The Tradition is not a precept apart from the Bible. It is not correct to make a distinction between the Tradition and the Bible. Both are sources of revelation that form part of our Tradition. The Bible is the history and the written tradition of the Church in the first century. For this reason, it occupies a privileged place in the Tradition of the Church. The context of 2 Timothy is exactly this: the Bible without the authority for interpreting it is not sufficient. What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching (2 Tim.1: 13). Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care [Tradition] . Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the truth (1 Tim.6: 20). See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ (Col.2: 8). Jesus did not condemn the Tradition of the Apostles, only the traditions of man. Sola Scriptura, which appeared with the Reformation, is one of these traditions. The Word of God is not reduced to only the Scriptures. 35 God continues to deepen our understanding of the Tradition (and, therefore, the Bible) by means of His Spirit. That which is Divine Inspiration is the Holy Scriptures and the Interpretation of them, as Jesus promised us. But the Counselor, the Holy
33

Even though they are against the Catholic Church, Mr. Hall and Mr. Lloyd have to make use of the Tradition of the Church to defend that the Bible is inspired. Papias (disciple of the Apostle John) said that Mark wrote the second Gospel, acting as though it was written by Peter. Justin Martyrasserted that Luke wrote his two letters to Theophilos (Ibid., p.106). 34 There is a distinction between tradition and Tradition. The first is the human customs and particular devotions which can be changed, like the example of the way the priest dresses for the Mass. Tradition is the revelation through writing or through oral preaching that can never be changed because it is from God. The word of the Lord stands forever (1 Peter 1: 25). 35 Some Protestants think that the word of God is always referring to the Scriptures. Sometimes it is true, but not always. In many places it is referred to Jesus, to the oral profession, or to the oral preaching of the Gospels. (Is.55: 10-11; Lk.3: 2-3; 5: 1 and 8, 11-15; Jn.1: 1; Acts 4: 31; 1 Thess.2: 13; Heb.4: 11-13 and 11: 3).

Spiritwill teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (Jn.14: 16). Therefore, the Church does not teach Sola Scriptura, but Sola Verbum Dei (only the Word of God). Salvation only through the Biblical Revelation is also not historical. The Church already existed centuries before the canon of the Bible was decided. There existed already Christians in Rome before Paul wrote the letter to them. Before he was persecuted, Paul said he would persecute the Church (Gal.1: 13). He taught the Ephesians a hymn that already existed in the Church (Eph.5: 14). Timothy had to teach faithfully whatever he had learned from Paul (2 Tim.2: 2. See 1 Cor.11: 2). Before the New Testament was written, the truth was known through oral preaching. We read in Acts 2: 42 that the teachings of the apostles were guarded, obviously before this book was written. In Acts 20: 35, Paul quotes from Jesus Christ something that is not found in any of the Gospels. It is more blessed to give than to receive. Where did he receive this statement? He got it through the Tradition because it is not in any book of the New Testament. He admits having preached the Gospel before putting it into writing. Now, brothers, I want remind you of the gospel I preached to youthat Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day (1 Cor.15: 1-3). Remember that this letter was written before the Gospels. Another example can be found in James (1: 18). He chose to give us birth through the word of truth How did these words get to James? More examples of the oral tradition of the Bible The author of the letter to the Hebrews mentions the sixth chapter about the existence of doctrines (in other Bibles, the word is instructions) on baptism, on the imposition of the hands, on the resurrection of the dead and the eternal judgment (v. 2). He wants to write these things if God in truth allows it (v. 3). But it seems Paul never could do it. If he had done it, we do not have the writings in this or any other letter. How would the author of Hebrews (9: 19) know all the details of the ratification of the Covenant narrated in Exod.24: 3-8. How did Luke know that Arphaxad was the father of Cainan in Lk.3: 36, when we do not find this name in the Old Testament? Gen.11: 12 mentions only Shelah. Paul knows the truth of the Tradition of the Old Testament. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul recognizes as truth a Jewish tradition that is not found in the Old Testament, but he explains something in it. Speaking of the Israelites in the desert, Paul says, (all) drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ (1 Cor.10: 4). However, the Old Testament does not speak of a rock that moved by itself. What followed was that the rock gave out water in two different geographic locations. In Exodus the rock was found in Rephidim (in Horeb) (17: 1-7), while in Numbers the rock is said to be in the same desert of Zin but in Kadesh (Nm.20: 7-11). How could the same rock be in two different places? Instead of saying that the author of the book of Exodus and Numbers (Moses) erred, the Jewish tradition taught that the rock moved by itself. This Jewish tradition about the rock that transported itself from one place to the next (even though in the Old Testament this was never mentioned) is taken, accepted and used by Paul to teach the Corinthians, saying that this rock was Christ. (The rock prefigured Christ.) Paul, through the Tradition, knows that the fact about the moving rock is true. Paul received through tradition (first oral than in writing) the idea of the moving rock from the rabbinical work Tosefta Sukk, 3: 11-13 (and Seudo-Filo Biblical Antiquities 10: 7). In later development, the Tradition said that the rock was the pre-existent Wisdom of God (Filo Leq. All 2: 86). The Apostle Paul takes this Tradition and elevates it to an even higher level Christ Himself is the Rock. The Apostle Jude quotes the apocryphal book, Enoch (1 Enoch1: 9), a rejected book from the canon of the Old Testament. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone (Jude: 14-16). Why, then, was it accepted in the canon of the New Testament? It took many years in delay, but through the tradition of the Church it was decided that the letter of Jude was an inspired book. In Jude: 9, we read of a dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. This event was not mentioned in the Old Testament. The early Christians mentioned the oral tradition regarding the body of Moses. (See Clement of Alexandria, Ep. Jud., and Origen, De Prin.3: 2: 1, and Gelasiso, History of the Church, 2.17.17).

Paul quoted from a non-canonical book in Titus 1: 12. Even one of their own prophets has said, Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons. 36 Paul shared his opinion on the case in which a person married an unbelievable. He made clear that his words were of his opinion, not from the Lord. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer (1 Cor.7: 12). How did verse 12 come to be considered as inspired if Paul himself had said that it was not from the Lord? The Church has discerned it as inspired words. The Bible is infallible. However, brethren, who can guarantee that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? Without the help of the Church to interpret the Bible, each person can misinterpret the Word of God. The proof of this is the existence of more than 10,000 different sects in the world, all with great doctrinal contradictions among themselves. Reflecting a bit further, we see that all of us interpret the Bible. When all is said and done, those who propagate Sola Scriptura is saying this, Only the Bible, but according to our interpretation in our group or according to our pastors interpretation. For example, while the Catholic Church says that Michael the Archangel is an angel, the Mormons say that Michael is Adam, the first man. The Jehovah Witnesses claim that Michael is Jesus Christ. Here we have three different interpretations of the Archangel Michael. Each of these three groups has its own list of biblical texts to support its interpretation. Speaking on the subject regarding the Rock from Mt.16: 18, whether it is Jesus or Peter, the Baptist professor Roland Leavell says, Different interpretations have been sustained by the Baptists from the conservative group in the United States37. Only the Bible is not so clear! Brethren, I know that you do not think of your Church as infallible. What will you tell the pastor of your congregation if he begins to teach, convinced by the sayings in Acts 2: 38 and 8: 16, that one must be baptized in the name of Jesus instead of in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt.28: 19)? Probably all of you will censure his teaching or even expel him from your congregation. Therefore, your church considers itself infallible. Let us say that the Baptist pastor becomes absolutely convinced through his meditations, studies and prayers that the Bible teaches the infant baptism. (The Anglicans, the Lutherans and some Presbyterians believe the same.) The Baptist Church expels him. Is the Baptist Church infallible, then, in its interpretation of the Bible on this doctrine? Note: We do not recognize as biblical baptism the practice of immersions in churches of other different faith and order, because they lack the ecclesiastical authority in their administration (Manual for the Ministers, -Baptist-, p.21)38 Paul speaks of the necessity to have all united in the ecclesiastical community. For him the unity was the essence of the Christian live. I appeal to youthat you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Cor.1: 10). They were all called in the one body (Col.3: 15). I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Rom.16: 17). To the Philippians the Apostle Paul says, Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose (Phil.2: 2). He exhorts them to stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the Gospel (Phil.1: 27). I urge youto keep the unity of the Spirit (other translation reads: Make the effort to remain united. Eph.4: 1-3. See 1 Cor.12). The
36

Paul quotes from Epimenides (sixth century AD.) Paul saw him as a prophet! Hall and Lloyd recognized these data (see p.) 37 In El Rey y el Reino (The King and the Kingdom) by Roland Q. Leavell, Casa Bautista Publications,

1990, p. 91. By the way, Mr. Leavell says, It is right to think that the Church ought to be built on Peter and the other apostles were as the living stones that placed themselves on this principal fundament (p. 19).
38

Various groups teach the following opposing messages, even though they are quoting from the same Bible (even the same tradition!) as their authority. Saturday is the day of the Lord (The Seventh Day Adventist, some Baptists, Soldiers of Christ, etc.); All the followers of Christ must be pacifists (the Quakers); The transfusion of blood is antibiblical (the Jehovah Witnesses); The Immersion is (the Baptists) or is not (the Anglicans) the only way of baptism; Infants are not (the Baptists) or are (the Lutherans) to be baptized; Peter is (p. e. the Evangelicals Alford, Broadhus Vicent) or is not the rock in Mt.16: 18; The Church must (the Methodists, the Lutherans) or must not (the Presbyterians) have bishops; The Amish prohibit the use of automobiles; Certain Pentecostals prohibit musical instruments in the temple; Many denominations allow women to wear make-up, but the Light of the World group prohibits it; Alcohol is prohibited by many Pentecostals, though it is permitted by the Episcopalians; The Seventh Day Adventists claim that Michael the Archangel is Jesus, etc., etc.

reason is, Jesus had said that the unity was the manner in which the world would believe that the Father had sent Him (Jn17: 21). Therefore, it is extremely important to make sure that the Church of Christ is united. The results of the Protestants Sola Scriptura doctrine are 39: Lutherans Mennonites Presbyterians Baptists Methodists Adventists Assembly of God Pentecostals Jehovah Witnesses Mormons 22 groups or gatherings 17 groups 10 groups 23 branches 19 groups 17 branches 9 groups thousands hundreds of separate groups hundreds of separate groups

Looking at the quantity of divisions among the Protestantism, it seems that the Holy Spirit that helps each individual to understand the meaning as Sola Scriptura teaches, contradict themselves Probably all the churches insist that they are descendents of that primitive church. How is it possible that such churches, with distinctive interpretations of the word of Christ, of Paul and of the rest of the writers, differ so much nowadays? (Estos Creemos Los Bautistas (These we the Baptists Believe), by James E. Giles, Casa Bautista Publications, Texas, 1977, p.7) It is known in the Christian community such zeal and denominational obstacles that they make us remember the Apostle St. Paul in 1 Cor.1: 12-13. What I mean is this: One of you says, I follow Paul; another, I follow Apollos; another, I follow Cephas; still another, I follow Christ. In the same way, here and now, the people say, I am Baptist; I am Methodist; I am Pentecostal, etc. Perhaps Jesus is a type for the Baptists, a different one for the Methodists, and yet another type for the Pentecostals? Is it not, perhaps, the same Jesus who died for all of us? We do not promote the utopian union of congregationsWe have differences in the fundamental and non-fundamental churches (La Buena Semilla (The Good Seed), an Evangelical magazine, No. 1, January of 1996, p.1) Peter warns those who interpret the Scriptures according to their fancy. (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3: 15-16). For this reason we need the authority of the Church to interpret the Bible. We know what the Constitution of a nation says, but we need the Court to know how to interpret what it means to say. The Bible, which we recognize as the ONLY AND SUFFICIENT principle of faith, which serves not only as the norm and guide in teaching people what they must believe, but also as the principles, the way of living for the believers 40

39

From Father Roberts Answers Jimmy Swaggart. St. Joseph Catholic Tapes and Books. Ca. 1986, p.67. Mr. Giles in his book Esto Creemos Los Bautistas (This We the Baptists Believe) says, How is it possible that such churches, with distinctive interpretations of the words of Christ, of Paul and of the rest of the writers, differ so much nowadays? We are going to consider the successive steps that resulted in the erroneous beliefs and practices of other groups (p.7). (Among these erroneous groups, the Baptists are not included, of course!) Mr. Giles purposely writes a lie about the Church when he says that the Church teaches that the Catholic Church has the authority so as to control the rest of the CatholicsThey do not have the freedom to express other different points of view (p.28). It depends.

From the little booklet by Light of the World, in response to the book La serpiente y la Paloma (The Serpent and the Dove) and the magazine Exgeta from the Apostolic Church of Faith in Jesus Christ, and Conoceris la Verdad y la Verdad os Libertar (You Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free), p.3. See Cuando la Luz Obscurece (When the Light Darkens) by this author. You will see many doctrines and practices taught by his church that are not in the Bible (is it in his tradition, then?) even though they claim to follow Sola Scriptura.
40

The argument is that the historical Protestant churches uses only the Bible to counter the Mormons whom they claim have erroneously added wordings to the Scriptures. However, the Bible only is not biblical as well. It is the Catholic Tradition that teaches that the revelation of God ended with the death of the Apostles. No such rule exists in the Bible. We agree in that these churches condemn the polygamy accepted in the Mormon writings. But, it is necessary to resort to the tradition in order to make this condemnation, because there are sources with biblical roots for accepting polygamy. Once we follow the Bible only , the canon of the Scriptures cannot be determined because it is in need of tradition. For this reason, the Mormons, correctly so, rely on private interpretation and introduce new revelations. Against bad translations that are not found in the Bible. In the Synod of Oxford (1408), the authorities of the Church prohibited the laity to read unauthorized translations of the Bible. That is to say, the Catholic Church prohibited the acceptance as Scriptures EVERYTHING THAT, INDEED, WAS NOT THE WORD OF GOD. For example, the Albegenses from the third century did a translation of the Bible that would correspond with their teachings. (See Cartar a mis amigos no-catlicos [Letter to my non-Catholic friends], p.24). Thomas More said, Wycliffe translated the Bible for himself. And in this translation, he purposely corrupted the sacred text , adding words to support the erroneous teachings that he was spreading. The lolardos even changed the text, so as to use the Bible to support the anarchy they later preached in England. The New Testament of Tyndale was published under King Henry VIII; the Bible of the Bishop in 1568; the Bible of King Jacob or The Revised Version in 1881. Each of these Bibles came about because the previous version was full of errors. In the De Sacramentis, Zwingli strongly condemned Luther for his corruption of his German translation of the Bible. Zwingli told Luther, You have corrupted the Word of God. One example is when Luther added the word alone in Romans 3:28 so that the text read: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from observing the law. In Summary If we ask an Evangelical how does he know that the Bible is inspired, he will reply with a quote from the Bible, because he feels it in his soul (the Holy Spirit illuminates him), or because the Bible is a book that inspires. None of these answers is adequate. This fact is extremely important for our dialogue. For some, this may not seem important because they believe that the Bible is inspired; and what is important is to believe in it. However, the basis of their believes (that the Bible is inspired) AFFECTS DIRECTLY HOW THEY INTERPRET IT. It is of utmost importance! The same authority on which one bases in saying that the Bible is inspired is the same authority on which he knows that his interpretation is correct. 41 To use the Bible to prove the Bible is like using the Koran or the book of Mormons to show that they are inspired books. Its the same as saying that I know the Atalaya is inspired because it says so. No. We have to find the proof outside of the text itself to show that the text is inspired. The second proof, which says that the Holy Spirit illuminates us to regard the Bible as being inspired, is also an insufficient one. It is too subjective. A Muslim could say the same thing with the Koran. In fact, a member from the Church of the Latter Saints (Mormons) says the fact that God gives Mormons the zeal in the heart is the proof that his religion is a true religion. Nevertheless, any Evangelical knows that the Mormon church is a false church.

41

The authority of the Sacred Scripturesdoes not depend on the testimony of any man or church, but exclusively on the testimony of God The Sacred Scriptures must be believed because they are the words of God Confesin de Fe de Westminster (Confession of the Faith of Westminster) , Publicacines el Faro, Mxico, 1984, 1993. (Chapter I, article D, p.19) This reasoning is circular and illogical. The infallible rule [sic] for interpreting the Bible is the Bible itself (article I, p.21)

Our conviction and compete security that his truth is infallible and his authority divine, comes from the work of the Holy Spirit who gives testimony to our heart with the divine word and through the divine word (Confesin de Westminster [Confession of Westminster], Chapter I, article E, p.19). The [Confession of Westminster], formulated in 1646, has become the doctrinal norm of the Presbyterian churches. Pbro, Les Thompson, El Cristianismo Romano y No Romano (The Roman and Non-Roman Christianism), El Faro Publications, Mxico, 1988, p.76). The third proof, that the Bible is inspiring when one reads it and, therefore, it is inspired, is not a sufficient proof as well. There are many religious books and poems that inspire us also. On the other hand, there is not much an inspiration in Chapters 1 and 2 of Deuteronomy or in Joshua 6:21. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. In the book of Esther, the word God never appears. How do we know that it is inspired? The same goes with the book Song of Songs. Besides, how do we know it is from Solomon? The third letter of John never mentions the name of Jesus. How do we know that it is a Christian book and that it belongs to the New Testament? In summary, we return to what we have seen under the topic of the Church, founded in Christ, which has the authority and was passed down. In Mt.23: 1-3, we read about a structure that was existing to preserve the teachings of the law from Moses. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat (see of authority). So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Jesus refers Himself to the chair (or seat) (Greek: catedros) of Moses and on this chair people will recognize His authority. He says that his disciples must go to those who are seated in this chair for the authority, to guard and to do EVERYTHING they say, even though those Scribes and the Pharisees themselves do not fulfill the teachings. They are the authority to interpret the Scriptures. This authority is founded in the principle of succession, beginning by Moses. Why is it so necessary to adhere to the teaching of those seated in the chair? Is it because of their manner of making the exegesis of the Scriptures? Is it because of their good example? No. It is because they have the charisma of interpreting , by their having the office of the authority from the chair of Moses. After the Resurrection of Christ and the foundation of the new people of God (the Christians), the Jews lost this authority. When the Pope defines a doctrine received from the Apostles in an infallible manner, he also speaks ex cathedra through the charisma he receives from his office. It is interesting to note that Jesus receives and follows the tradition of the chair of Moses through the oral tradition. Nowhere in the Old Testament is this chair spoken of. This same authority that comes from an ecclesiastical office is seen also in Jn.11: 51, where the High Priest Caiphas made the prophecy (without knowing he did so). He prophesized not because he was [a] good [priest] but because he was the High Priest of that year, thus he was empowered with the charisma. When he received the book of the law, the king Hosea did not do what the Sola Scriptura proponents advocate i.e., to beseech the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and then to interpret the Scriptures. Instead, he asked for the prophet and for the priest Hilcias. Both went to interpret the Scriptures because they were the authority in the interpretation at that time (read 2 King 22: 11-14). In the New Testament, we see that the ecclesiastical authorities (which in this case Peter) intervened to control the interpretation of the letters of Paul. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation (2 Peter 1: 20). Thus, Sola Scriptura is not the only source of revelation and authority. In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 7-11), Peter proclaims a decision (without consulting the Bible but changing Gods saying in Gen.17: 7-10), which is that it is not necessary to circumcise the Gentile converts. This decision is bound to all the disciples until today. Meanwhile, the writings of James, regarding the decision to abstain oneself from food that was sacrificed to the idols, from blood(Acts 15: 29), that were meant to be implemented in pastoral manner, are NOT bound to the Christians today.

My brethren, how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? What is your guiding principle in interpreting the Bible? From where does it come? To leave the Catholic Church because some priests do not preach the Bible enough is a legitimate complaint, but it is not the solution. Do your part so that the Church would become lively. We need the Church to safeguard the correct interpretation of the Bible. In the following chapter we continue defining which church has this authority.

8. IN SEARCH OF THE CHURCH THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND SAFEGUARDS THE TRADITION
If (a person) refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-collector (Mt.18: 17). This exhortation of Jesus, which is spoken to the Church, ought to make us question each believer, To which church was Jesus referring? One must not remain at peace until he finds the answer, or feel satisfied in thinking that Jesus was referring to the local congregation, because you know that none of those local congregations existed then. We saw how the Apostles made the law of the transmitting the power of being apostle and bishop. [Paul and Barnabas] appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayers and fasting, committed them to the Lord in whom they had put their trust (Acts 14: 23). Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you (1 Tim.4: 14). It means that a presbyter, with the legitimate authority (because he received it from other presbyter), transmits this authority through the imposition of the hands. This chain, began from the Apostles, was never interrupted. In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, we read how the authority of the bishops was tied in to the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is He who authorizes them. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (Acts 20: 28). It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements (Acts 15: 28). In certain texts, the bishops (Episcopal, which means vigilant) appear to have the same role as the presbyters (Titus 1: 5-7; Acts 20: 17 and 28). However, their title demonstrates a function, an office, while the presbyter connotes a state, a dignity. The bishops and presbyters were entrusted with the administration of temporal things, with the teaching (1 Tim.3: 2; 5: 17 and Titus 1:9), and with the government (1 Tim.3: 5 and Titus 1: 7). In the letter of Ignatius of Antioch, we saw that the bishop was the leader of the group of priests. Paul, after receiving the vision of Jesus, had to resort to the authorities of the Church to obtain the approbation of his calling (Acts 13: 3). He went to Peter (Gal.1: 18) and considered Peter to be the first witness of the resurrected Jesus (I Cor.15: 5) and the one who had the highest authority (1 Cor.9: 5). Later he also visited Jacob and John (Gal.2: 7-10) to verify his preaching. He did not start another church, but was guided by Ananias, a representative of the church (Acts 9: 12), who baptized him. In this way, Paul was incorporated into the Church founded by Jesus Christ, of which the see was in Jerusalem at that time (vv. 27-28). The majority of the Protestant churches do not have bishops. Those that have them, they are not licit because they did not receive the authority form the apostolic succession, or they had separated themselves from the Church which has transmitted them this authority. We have heard that some went out from us without authorization (Acts 15: 24). Many Evangelicals erected temples and elected for themselves (or by a committee) pastors, while the Bible warns that no one takes this honor upon himself (Heb.5: 4). Any man can say that he is an elder or a deacon. But, if he does not have the approbation of the Church, he cannot be accepted considered or accepted as such. I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not (Rev.2: 2). (Please. Read about the false apostles in Acts 19: 13-16). Paul, who had a true authority, could go to the point of excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander from the Church (1 Tim.1: 20). He did the same with those who committed incest (1 Cor.5: 1 and 5). In his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul says, As apostles of Christ, we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you (2: 7). The Tradition: Revelation of God and the traditions of men.

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in you (2 Tim.1: 13-14). Protestants like to criticize Catholics for their customs. Quoting out of context from Mk.7: 7-8, they say that these traditions are not from God, but from men. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men. The reason is that they (Catholics) have abandoned the Commandment of God and have adhered to the tradition of men. However, in this aspect the Catholic Church knows how to distinguish between the human traditions and the Tradition that comes from the Apostles. In some towns, the custom of getting oneself drunk during a festivity is, no doubt, a bad custom. It is a tradition that comes from men, not from God, and it is a tradition the Church never retains. In the Gospel of Mark, those customs that Jesus is condemning are the traditions that abolish the Word of God, specifically the 4 th Commandment. You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! Moses said, Honor your father and mother (Mk.7: 9-10. See Mt.15: 6-9). The context shows that Jesus was condemning not the Tradition inspired and revealed by God, but the customs of men that were being used as the replacements. They were teaching those customs as the human doctrinal commandments. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men (Mk.7: 8). There are other Catholic traditions that are not bad, even though they are human traditions, such as the way a temple is constructed the architecture changes over the centuries. Other traditions include the Last Supper and the washing of the feet, both of which were performed by Jesus Himself. The New Testament was the fruit of the Tradition of the Early Church that maintained the teachings of Christ. Paul passed on the Tradition that he had received from Christ through His Church. He wrote to the Thessalonians, So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teaching we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess.2: 15). Why does Paul mean when he tells them to hold on to the teaching they have received, whether by word of mouth or by letter? He wants them to safeguard the doctrine that has been passed on to them, whether by the word of mouth (the Oral Tradition) or and his written letters to Timothy (the Written Tradition, which forms part of the Bible). The Tradition is the good deposit that Paul asked Timothy to retain (2 Tim.1: 13, quoted above). Since an overseer [bishop] is entrusted with Gods work, he must be blamelessHe must hold firm to the trustworthy message as it has been taught (Titus 1: 7-9). It is obvious that those overseers (bishops) were taught by word of mouth, not by the Bible (the New Testament) which had not yet existed. The Tradition corresponds to the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude v.3), and it is not entirely transmitted through writing. Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written (Jn.21: 25). What happened to that unwritten information? It was transmitted through word of mouth of the successors to the Apostles. Paul passed on to the Corinthians what he had received. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor.15: 3-5). How did Paul receive all these details of Jesus life? He received them through the oral preaching, because the Gospels had not been written at the time he sent out his letter (see also 1 Cor.11: 23). Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to usso that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Lk.1: 1-4). Which kind of things was Theophilus taught, that, according to Luke, were handed down to us? They were the teachings that were handed down before Luke wrote the Gospel.

The Bible says that Joseph, Mary and Jesus went up to Jerusalem in accordance to the custom (Lk.2: 42). Paul knows how to distinguish. In his defense, he says that he has done nothing against their people or against the customs of their ancestors (Acts 28: 17). Indeed, the Protestant brethren are attacking the customs of the ancestors that have been passed down through the apostolic tradition. For example, the devotion to Mary, confession to a priest, etc. Rather than starting other religion or a new church, it would be better to counter the possible problems within the Church such as drinking problem. When Jesus saw how the people had turned the temple of their ancestors into a den of robbers, He did not choose to destroy it and build another temple. Instead, He entered into the temple and cleansed it, so that the temple [His House] would be called a house of prayer (Mt.21: 13). The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them (Mt.21: 14). In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching (tradition) you receive from us (2 Thess.3: 6). If you ask a Protestant friend why do they begin their congregation at such and such a time, they will answer, by the custom of the congregation and/or the tradition of their religion. The Bible never tells us at what moment [their church] begins. In short, the Protestant brethren will have to admit that all the denominations have their traditions, and that some of those traditions (e.g. the prohibition of drinking wine) are not mentioned in the Bible. Not directly, at least. 42 Therefore, the fact is not so much whether the [Catholic] Church, founded by Christ, appears exactly like the one mentioned in the New Testament, because nothing appears as such. The fact is if the [Catholic] Church says that it is from Christ, it has safe-guarded all the beliefs of the Apostles and, at the same time, has deepen its understanding of the of those beliefs, event though it has changed the external practices throughout the centuries. A living Church will expect to mature in its understanding, and it will always hold on to the essentials. The question, then, is not why the Church changes some of the practices? but why, in the first place, do you think that the Church would not do anything at all throughout the centuries? The early Christians drew some boats in the catacombs in Rome, to remind themselves of that instance when Jesus chose Peters boat to deliver His teaching to the crowd (Lk.5: 3). The early Christians chose the image of Peters boat to symbolize the Church that gathers all her faithful with the authority of Peter and of Jesus. You will know how people ought to conduct themselves in Gods household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth (2 Tim.3: 15).

What does the Early Church say?

Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Polycarp (13): He mentions the three ministries. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians): Summit yourselves to your bishop and to the college of priests. The bishops safe-guard the thoughts of Christ. Ignatius (Letter to the Magnesians): The Church is visible where the bishops and priests are present. The bishops represent God. Ignatius (Letter to the Trallians): Without bishops and priest, there is no Church. Clement (p.58): disciple of Peter, successor in the government and the direction of the Church. The Pastor Hermas (III, 7): The Church is built on apostles and bishops. Clement (Second Letter, p.156): Therefore, let us choose to belong to the Church of life, SO AS TO SAVE OURSELVES. The Church is the Body of Christ. Hippolytus (215): in The Apostolic Tradition, 9. Clement of Alexandria (before 202 AD): The The Instructor of Children (Paidagogos), 3:12:97:2 and in Stromata, 6:13:107:2. Origen (235): Homilies on Luke , No. 17. The Council of Elvira (300): Canon No. 18.
For example, read the Baptist Manual Manual para Ministros (Manual for the Ministers) by Leobardo Estrada Cuesta , (Casa Bautista de Publicaciones), pp.81-81, regarding the Nuptial ceremonies. This manual teaches the wedding couples what to say during the wedding.
42

Irenaeus: According to him, Clement was conserving the teaching and the preaching of Peter and Paul.

9.THE CHURCH THAT ESTABLISHES THE NEW TESTAMENT

For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction because he is the messenger of the Lord Almighty (Mal.2: 7). And from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim.3: 15). When Paul wrote this to Timothy, he was speaking of the Sacred Scriptures that we know today as the Old Testament. At that time, not all the books of the New Testament had been written yet. Jesus never wrote any book. If He had wished that the Faith be brought from reading, He would have told us so. If the ability to read had been the requisite for salvation, many of the people in the history of Christianity would have been damned because literacy was a privilege only to a few until this century. Jesus did not command His disciples to write something. Instead, He commanded them to preach the Good News (Mt.28: 20). Some of the Apostles (Peter, Paul, James, Matthew and Judas) wrote parts of the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of the other Apostles wrote anything, at least not from the existing data that we know. If the particular interpretation of the Bible must be a divine obligation, as Luther taught, it seems that the Apostles were very lax in their duties. The reason being some of them were content with their preaching, and had never written down the things that Christ had taught and commanded them (Mt.28: 20). How did they fulfill their duties, then? The early Christians followed the commandment, Go, and make disciples of all nations. Later, they began to put into writing the tradition that they received. That is to say, whatever they were preaching the variety of the communities, the necessity of communications and using one text or common texts, etc. they continued demanding it. In addition, those eye-witnesses were passing away, and it became necessary to write down their remembrance and the systems of preaching. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul and the rest of the authors of the New Testament to write, for the good of the Church. First, they gathered the letters of Paul in different cities. Some of the letters were lost, such as the letter to the Laodiceans mentioned in Col.4: 16. Marcion, a Christian, wrote in the year 110 AD that the Christians should throw away the Old Testament and everything else that was Jewish in the rest of the Christian writings. The bishops condemned his writing and they recognized that the Hebrew Scriptures were still the revelation. Later, a man named Tacio tried to unite the distinct Gospels into one book, discarding the repetitions in those Gospels. However, his idea was not well accepted by many. In the first centuries of the Church, no decision was yet made as to which books form the canon of the Bible (the list of the inspired books). There were many different opinions regarding which books were the inspired ones. In some cities of the Middle East, the letter to the Hebrews was rejected. Many false writings were also in circulation at the time. In Antioch, in the year 200 AD, the Gospel of Peter was being used (which was actually considered one of those Apocryphal Gospels). The enemies of the Church tried to spread confusion and to promote heresies through distributing false Gospels and letters. For example, the Gospel of Thomas (promoted by the Agnostics), the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and letters of Paul that were truly not written by him, etc. Towards the end of the third century, other different lists began to surface (e.g., from Mileto, Bishop of Sardis; from Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, and from Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea). However, little by little, the Holy Spirit guided the Church to discern which books ought to be accepted. In the Roman Council, under the authority of Pope Damasus (366-384 AD), the first list of the Universal (Catholic) Church appeared.

The Council of Hippo (393 AD), the last council promulgated by Pope Damasus during the Synod in Rome in 382 AD, represented the first official confirmation. Further on, in the documents of the synods, whether from the East or from the West, and in the decrees of the Popes (e.g. Innocence I), the books of the New Testament appeared. In the Council of Carthage (397), the decisions of the previous Councils regarding the canon were reaffirmed. Another council (Carthage II in 419) was even needed to reaffirm the canon because doubts still existed concerning the letter of James, the letter of Jude and the letter to the Hebrews. We find the list of the 46 books of the Old Testament (Catholic Bible) in the 36 th Decrees of this council. All these happened more than 300 years after the death of Jesus. Why did it take so long for the Church to decide on the canon of the Bible? The reason being there were many violent persecutions against the Church, and they impeded the bishop, the priests, the deacons and the laity in their ability to get together to decide on and to authenticate the books, also to combine them into one volume. (In the heat of persecutions, it would be too risky to form a gathering.) However, when the Emperor Constantine gave peace to the Christian world, the undertaking to unite the various parts of the Scriptures began, with the encouragement of the Pope. The argument that the Church expressed hatred against the Bible is not true. The truth is the Church tried to protect the faithful from the manipulated traditions and the corrupted Bible. From here the opposition was made against the Waldenses, Albigenses, and the followers of Wycliff and Tyndale. The authorities of the Church in the Synod of Oxford (1408) prohibited the laity from reading the traditions of the Bible that were not authorized. That is to say, the Church forbade the acceptance of ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT TRULY THE WORDS OF GOD as the Scriptures. For example, the Albigenses of the XIII century made up a tradition of the Bible that corresponded to their teaching. (See Carta a mis amigos no catlicos [Letter to my non-Catholic friends], p.249.) Thomas More said, Wycliff himself translated the Bible. And, in this translation, he purposely corrupted the sacred text, aggravating the words to support the erroneous teachings he was spreading. The Lollards changed even more the text, making use of the Bible to facilitate the Anarchy they were preaching in England later. The New Testament of Tyndale was published under the emperor Henry VIII. A few versions were printed subsequently The Bible of the Bishop in 1568, The Bible of King Jacob or The Revised Version in 1881. Each of these versions came about because the previous one was full of errors. In the De Sacramentis, Zwingli condemned Luther forcefully for his corruption of the Bible in his German translation. Zwingli said to Luther, You have corrupted the word of God. For example, Luther added the word only in Rom.3: 28, as we have seen in the footnote of p.***. We admit that some priests were rather imprudent, but they did not have the ill intention of diminishing the importance of the Bible; only to protect it. Martin Luther had to admit that without the Catholic Church, he would not have had the Bible. (See Luthers Comentario sobre San Juan [Commentary on St. John], 16.) For many centuries, Latin was the universal language of the Church and of the world. The priest would read the Bible in this language in every Mass. When Latin was dropped from being the universal language in the West, by tradition the readings of the Bible remained in Latin, but the faithful had the missal in translated version.

People who think that the translation of the Bible did not exist before Martin Luther are in error. Before Luther translated the Bible into German, the Church already had 626 Catholic editions of the Bible, and parts of them were in 26 different European languages, and in Russian. For example, the Hexpla Bible from 240 AD, the Jerome Bible, the Vulgate Bible from 390 AD. 30 German editions of the complete Bible were already in existence before Luthers edition in 1534; nine of these editions were published before Luthers birth. The Church had approved 62 Hebrew editions of the Bible, 22 Greek editions, 20 in Italian, 26 in French , 19 in Flemenco, 2 in Spanish (the ALPHONSIAL Bible [Alphonso the Wise, 280 AD] and the ALBA HOUSE Bible [Old Testament, 1430 AD] 43), 6 in Bohemian, 1 in Slav, 1 in Catalan and 1 in Czech. 44 The first printed copy of the Bible was published under the patronage of the Catholic Church, and was printed by the Catholic printing press inventor, Johannes Gutenberg. The Catholic Church also published the first Bible with chapters and numbered verses -- the fruit of Stephen Langtons effort, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury, England. In spite of this fact, the Protestant brethren accuse the Church of having attempted the destruction of the Bible. If the Church had the desire to destroy the Bible, she had had 1500 years to do so. From the entire process in completing the canon the list of the books in the New Testament we understand better that the Bible has come out from the Church, not the Church from the Bible. Therefore, truly there is no separation between the Bible and the Tradition. The Bible forms part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

43

From the Evangelical book La Biblia. Cmo se convirti en libro [The Bible. How was it converted into book], by Terry Hall, (Las Americas edition, 1991, p.178). The Venerable Beda, an English historian in the 8 th century, began to translate the Vulgate Bible into English (p.116). See also the Lighthouse (a Presbyterian magazine), July-August edition, 1991, p.148. The problem with the book of Mr. Hall and Mr. Lloyd is that in order for it to be anti-Catholic in their position, they have to manipulate the historical facts, so much so that they become contradictory. On one hand they say that the Catholic Church recognized for the first time (and, of course, later added in) the seven books in the Council of Trent in 1546 (p.77). However, later they say that the seven books were accepted in the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) (p.159). The truth is the Council Fathers in both the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage accepted the entire 73 books, not just the 66 books. 44 Ibid., p.131.

10. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE A COMPLETE SCRIPTURE

The Protestant Bible is different from the Catholic Bible. Looking at the index of the books in the Protestant Bible, we count 66 books. But, in the Catholic Bible and in the Orthodox Bible, we can see that they contain 7 more books. These are the ones that are missing in the Protestant Bible 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Barach, Wisdom and Ecclesiastes; all known as the deutero-canonical. The Protestant brethren call those 7 books deutero-canonical 45. Apocryphal, on the other hand, means noninspired; therefore, the Church does not admit books that are in this category. We have already seen that those books were, indeed, accepted by the Church, together with the New Testament. Why the difference? We saw that it was not until 363 AD that the bishops gathered together with the priests and the laity to discern which books were the inspired ones to form part of the canon. The Church had the power to do it because Jesus had given her the power to bind and to lose (Mt.18: 18), and had promised that He would send down the Holy Spirit for the fullness of the truth (Jn.14: 26). In the 15th Century, Martin Luther thought that the early Christians were using the Jewish Canon of Palestine (those books written in Hebrew), a list of 39 books. The longer list, 46 books (in Greek the international language at that time) called the Alexandrial Canon or Tradition of the 70, was accepted by the majority of the dispersed Jews in all over the world. Alexander was the biggest and the most important Jewish center in the world that spoke Greek. In the year 70 AD, some Jewish leaders gathered together to decide another canon (known as the Canon of Palestine). They got rid of the 7 books in order to return to the Hebrew canon, and to separate themselves from the Christians. 46 They considered that those not written in Hebrew were not inspired (even though Ecclesiastes and 1 Maccabees were originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. 47) When St. Jerome was asked to translate the Bible into Latin (10 382 AD), he decided to follow the decision of the Jews. He discarded the 7 books, calling them apocryphal. (We do not know why he called them so.) The subsequent Councils, as we have mentioned earlier, rejected this decision of Jerome. Martin Luther and the rest of the reformers decided to follow the Jewish decision in adopting the canon of the Old Testament using Hebrew as the criteria and rejected the 7 books from their Bible. They called those 7 books apocryphal, following the idea of St. Jerome. Hence, the Protestant Bible began. At the time of the Reformation, Luther (1534) introduced the idea of judging the books of the New Testament in accordance to his consideration of their authority. He placed the letter to the Hebrews, the letter of James, the letter of Jude and the Apocalypse in the second level, and put them till the last in his translation. He did the same with the 7 books of the Old Testament, but he did not reject them from the Bible. He considered those 7 books unequal to the Sacred Scriptures, but useful and good for reading (Article VI of those 39). In 1643, Professor John Lightfoot called those books disgraced apocryphal. In 1827, the Foreign and Britanical Society of the Bible omitted those books completely in their Bible. Then, other editorials did the same thing. Some brethren say that the Catholic Church added those 7 books in the Council of Trent (16 th Century). However, if those 7 books were not already in the canon, how was Luther able to reject them? 48
45

Deutero means second, not false. Deutero-canonical means the second canon those books accepted after the original rest. The New Testament also has deutero-canonical books, i.e., the books that were accepted by Catholics in much later date. The examples are 1 and 2 Peter, and Hebrews, They were not universally recognized at first. 46 New archeological discoveries, including the scrolls of the Dead Sea, Qumran indicates that there were other lists of books there were accepted as the inspired ones (canon) in addition to the ones we know. The Jews did not explicitly define the canon until the second century after Christs death. See Apocrypha by Robert Denton, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, New York; Oxford University Press, 1993, p.37. 47 Archeology and the Bible, Edwin Yamauchi. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.53. Also Hall and Lloyd, p.153.

The Christians were using the longer list of books more than the shorter one, because the books were written in Greek. Greek was the universal language at that time, and it was the language of the New Testament. Nevertheless, from the very beginning those representatives who were isolated from the Church (at least in their practice) did not place those 7 books with the other 39 in the same category, in consideration for the Jews, above all to avoid controversies. In 70 AD, the Jews from Palestine decided on the Canon of the Old Testament in the city of Jamnia. They rejected those 7 books written Greek (they were following the idea of the dispersed Jews). Some brethren, using Rom.3: 1-2 as their argument, say that Christians should recognize this Palestinian Jewish decision. What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew? First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.49 In that same Jewish reunion, they composed a prayer against the Christians prayer that had been in circulation for decades. If we were to go along with the Jews decision regarding the Old Testament, years after the death of Jesus, why would we not accept their anti-Christian prayer? Why would we not accept their canon of the New Testament as well? The manuscripts, more ancient than the Old Testament by a thousand years, contain the Deuterocanonical. From the 850 documents of those discoveries that remain in Qumran, some 223 are copies of the distinctive books from the Old Testament. They were found to be representing almost all the books from the Hebrew Bible (less Esther), and some Deutero-canonical (Tobits Sirach, or Ecclesiastes)As I have already mentioned, the actual Hebrew Bible possesses as its basis a manuscript of Leningrado copied in the year 1008 AD, the manuscript that represents the official rabbinical consonantal text (Masoretical Text), which was set with all precision in the 2 nd century and was transmitted without variant until the present day. Before Luther, the non-protesting Christians in the East and in the West habitually used the books and the text of the old Greek version from the LXX When the first biblical manuscripts of Qumran were published, to be exact the two scrolls of Isaiah discovered in Cave 1, we found out that these texts a thousand years more ancient than the medieval manuscripts on which the Hebrew Bible based itself, and years more ancient than the Masoretical unification were practically similar to the text we know. Los Documentos del Qumrn, qu aportan al cristianismo? (The Qumran Documents How do they help the Christianity?), by Eulalio Fiestas Le-Ngoc in Palabra (Word), October, 1994m, p.71. The Council (Trent) Fathers knew that the African Councils (Hippo, Carthage) in the 4 th century accepted the deutero-canonical books It seems curious that Trent, in accepting a larger canon, appears to have conserved an authentic remembrance of the early days of Christianity, while other Christian groups, in their recognized intention of returning to the early Christianity, decided to adopt the much reduced Jewish canon. These Protestant investigators discovered that the early Church was using the longer list (of the books)! When the authors of the New Testament quote something from the Old Testament, 86% of the time they go according to the Greek tradition of the 70 (the Septuagint). Some brethren admit this fact, but they try to argue that those 7 books were the supplement of the longer list and, for this reason, Christ and the Apostles did not quote from them. However, the authors of the New Testament did not make such a distinction. To quote from the books in the (longer) list was to admit that they were all inspired. If those 7 books were false, to add them in as a supplement would have made the list impure (and the custom with which they used the books). We are aware of the reverence of the Jews towards the Sacred Scriptures. When Jesus entered into the synagogue to do the reading (Lk.4: 16-17), it would have been an opportune moment for Him to tell the people that among those books in the synagogue, 7 of them were not inspired.
48

Martin Luther argued that the historian, Josefo, did not recognize those 7 books. That is not correct. Josefo did recognize the book of Judith, a fact that the Protestant brethren do not mention often in their argument against those 7 books. Moreover, Josefo was not a Christian. He should not be considered as a norm. 49 Other book, the author being anonymous, quotes the year 1547 as the date in which the Church added those 7 books. Un catlico Investiga el Evangelio y Halla la Verdad de la Vida (A Catholic investigates the Gospels and Discovers the Truth of Life), p.8. But, as usual, the date was after Luther. This same book contradicts itself in saying that the Church did not have the 7 books in the Bible until the 16 th Century and, at the same time, it says that those 7 books were included in the Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome (from the 4th Century). Because of its Latin (the language of the Church), the Vulgate Bible has been used by the Church in the West until this present century.

In addition, those 7 books were, in fact, quoted in the oral Tradition, as the Apostolic Fathers have shown in their writing (see the pages ahead). They were quoted directly and indirectly in the followings as well -- Mt.6: 7 (Ecc.7: 14), Mt.6: 14 (Ecc.28: 2) and Rom.1: 19-32 (Wisdom 12: 24 to 13: 9). Also, Eph.5: 14 has the idea contained in Wisdom 5: 17-20, James 1: 19 was influenced by Ecc.5: 13 and 1Peter 1: 16-17 can be seen in Wisdom 3: 5-6, etc. It is important to remember that the Protestant brethren accept the books of the Old Testament that are never quoted in the New Testament, such as Ruth, Ecclesiastes and Songs of Songs. Even so, why do they only accept the certain books when the Church has once long decided to accept the whole Bible, like the one the Catholics have. In essence, the debate over whether the 7 books are apocryphal is a debate over how do we know if those books are inspired. As we have seen, without the Church we will never know for a fact. A Catholic knows with certainty that the Bible is inspired because the Catholic Church said so the last time in the Council of Trent. Martin Luther in his Comentario sobre San Juan (Commentary on St. John) said, We are obliged to admit to the Pope-followers that they have the Word of God, and that we have received it from them. Without them we would not have any knowledge of it. This Church pronounced that all those 73 books that form the Old and the New Testament are revelation. In 1615, the Anglican Archbishop of Cantebury passed a law that would carry a one-year imprisonment on anyone who would publish the Bible without the 7 deutero-canonical books, since the original King James version already had those books. It has been decided that only the Holy Scriptures, and nothing else apart from it, should be read in the Church. The canonical Scriptures are the following: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, JoshuaTobitJudith, the two books of Maccabees, the two books of (Canon No. 3). 50 Brethren, let us imagine that a Christian had only the Gospel of Mark. He would lack much of the knowledge of Christ. He would know nothing of Christs infancy, since it is found only in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. He would know nothing of the Our Father prayer because it does not appear in Mark. The same goes with the parable of the prodigal son, the wedding in Cana, etc. If a brother had only a page of the Bible, would he think he knows the whole revelation of God? Without the Catholic Bible, a non-Catholic would have a difficult time in understanding the revelation of God on the deceased and on the purgatory (2 Mac.12: 45; Wisdom 3: 5-6), on the soul (Wisdom 3: 1), on the good use of wine (Ecc.31: 25-27), on Mary as the Mother of Jesus (Jude 13: 18-20), on the intercession of the Saints for us (2 Mac.15: 13-14), and many more. Why not ask God for the light on these important subjects?

What does the Early Church say?

Among the Fathers of the Church, Clement quotes from Judith, Tobit and Esther. In his Letter to the Corinthians (27:5), he quotes from Wisdom 12: 12. Didaje quotes from Ecc.4: 31 (in 4: 5) and from Wisdom 12: 5 (in 5: 2) Letter of Barnabas quotes from Wisdom 2: 12 (in 6: 7) Polycarp, in his Letter to the Philippians (10: 2) quotes Tobit 4: 10. In addition, the 7 deutero-canonical books offered the early Christian artists material for decorating the catacombs.

50

Canonicidad (Canonicity) by James Turro and Raymond Brown in St. Jerome Biblical Commentary, Christianity Edition, 1972, 1990, p.70.

11. IS IT A REAL PRESENCE OR IS IT JUST A SYMBOL?

I will lift up the cup of salvation (Psalm 116: 13) Shortly after Martin Luther, the Protestant churches threw aside the belief that Jesus Christ is truly and sacramentally in the consecrated bread and wine. They say that the consecrated bread and wine are only the symbol of Christs presence and, therefore, they do not adore those consecrated elements like the Catholics do. Their argument is that Jesus meant only in parable when He spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, since the last supper of the Lord is nothing more than a remembrance. Do this in remembrance of me (Lk.21: 19). If the Protestant brethren are correct, they lose nothing. However, if the Catholic Church has the truth, that is, if the consecrated bread and wine effectively and literally signify the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the brethren lose a great deal because they do not have the opportunity to receive this food of eternal life. The transubstantiation, that is, the changing of the substance of the bread and wine at the Last Supper of the Lord, cannot be demonstrated by the Sacred Scriptures. Instead, they contradict the simple words of the Bible (Art. 18 of the Constitucin de la Iglesia Metodista de Mxico [Constitution of the Methodist Church of Mexico], 1975, and Disciplina Iglesia Metodista de Mxico [Methodist Church Discipline of Mexico], 1991, p.54). This doctrine that maintains a change of substance of the bread and wine to the substance of the body and blood of Christhas been and is the cause of many superstitions. Also, it is the cause of gross idolatry (Confesin de Fe de Westminster [Confession of Westminsters Faith], Faro Publications, Mexico, 1984, 1993, Ch.29, art. F). Nevertheless Those who receive the Communion must be fully convinced that which appears to be bread is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the body of Christ; that which appears to be wine is not wine, even though is tastes like wine (Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 AD, Catechetical Discourse). First of all, it is important to know the true meaning of the word transubstantiation. It is the belief that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity (in other words, Christ Himself) are truly present under the appearance of bread and wine. What does the Bible say? As the Protestant brethren affirm, it is true that Jesus spoke of Himself in symbols. I am the gate (Jn.10: 9); I am the vine (Jn.15: 1). In these occasions, anyone who heard Jesus did not take the words literally. Of course, nobody asked Him, If you are the gate, where is the latch? If you are the vine, where are the leaves and why arent they green? Everyone understood that He was speaking in symbols. In other occasions, when the people did not understand Him, He corrected their misunderstandings. (See Mt.16: 512). However, it was not the case in Jn.6 and in the Last Supper. What happened in Chapter 6 of John? The context of this chapter is important Jesus performed a miracle with the bread that fed the whole crowd. After the event, He taught them that He was the bread that came down from heaven. He Himself is the food (Jn.6: 35-41).

The reaction of the Jews during the discourse is of utmost important. Jesus began to speak in literal sense of the words and the Jews took it literally as well when Jesus said that He had come down from heaven. They were disgusted with His words, therefore. How can he now say, I came down from heaven? (Jn.6: 44). However, Jesus really came down from heaven. The separated brethren will agree with us that Jesus literally came down from heaven. But, it is sad that while they believe literally this part of Jesus discourse in John, they do not believe in the rest of the chapter in the same way. For them they are just symbols. In the following, we will see that the truth is otherwise. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (Jn.6: 51-53). We see that Jesus in Jn.6: 51-60 had to repeat a few times in saying my flesh is real food, and the people took His words literally. How can this man give us his flesh to eat? And Jesus did not correct them! He did not tell them that He was only speaking in parable, and that they should not take His words literally. 51 Jesus repeated once more. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (Jn.6: 55). Once more, the Jews reacted to His words. In verse 60, we read that the Pharisees said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? Later we read that from this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer follow him (v.66). This is the only case in which there is affirmation that Jesus was abandoned by some disciples because of what He had said. AND JESUS DID NOT STOP THEM FROM LEAVING HIM. He did not say to them, Do not leave. I am only speaking symbolically. Do not misunderstand me. He risked losing all His apostles, but He continued to mean what He said regardless, and His Apostles got the sense that Jesus meant it. Nevertheless, that was a hard teaching. Why did the Pharisees and the disciples understand that Jesus was speaking literally when He said He had come down from heaven and that His flesh was real food, while the Protestant brethren think that Jesus was speaking literally only when He said He had come from heaven? When Jesus said that His flesh was real food, the brethren say that it was a symbol. The text does not give us any idea that the first expression means literally, and the second does not. In fact, after having said that His flesh was real food, Jesus told them once more that He was the bread that came down from heaven (Jn.6: 58). It does not make sense that in between the two things Jesus said in literal sense, there is another phrase that is symbolic. To say that the first phrase is literal, the second symbolic and the third literal, is to do violence to the context. In the heart of the expression (My flesh so that the world may have life) there is an Aramaic formula in which flesh is used to substitute body, so as to distinguish the created reality of the human person. For the life is a translation from the Greek word, HYPER. In the accounts of the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted the Mass, the Mass denotes the sacrificial and redeeming character of the death of Christ. (See Chapter 12.) The separated brethren quote Jn.6: 35 -- when Jesus says, He who comes to me will never go hungry and, He who believes in me -- as the proofs that chapter 6 is symbolic. They affirm that when Jesus calls Himself the bread of life, He is only saying that if we believe in Him, He is not going to nourish us spiritually in the same way as the bread does in the physical manner. The brethren say that we eat of His flesh and we drink of His blood mean going to Christ and believing in Christ. However, as we have seen, the context is clearly literal, not symbolic. Even Martin Luther believed in the true presence of Christ, in Luthers Collected Works, No.7, Wittenburg Edit.

51

Another reason for us to know that Jesus was not speaking in parable is, when He said that He was the vine and the gate, He was pointing to Himself I am and He explained their meanings. But, in the Last Supper, He referred Himself to an object (the bread) and said that it was His body, and He never gives it any other explanations.

In addition, Jesus did not correct the disciples when they took His words literally and stopped following Him (Jn.6: 66). They were from His race and they knew how to understand Him. Also, they could see His face and recognize His way of speaking. Therefore, they were disgusted when He spoke about His flesh being the true food. If Jesus were only speaking about the institution of a food as a blessing, nobody would have left Him, including His disciples. After all, the Jewish religion and the custom of the ancient world were replete with special food. See how many times Jesus participated in meals when He was visiting people and how He used the image of the banquet in His parables. Another reason we can be sure that Jesus was speaking in the literal sense is that during Jesus time, to eat somebodys flesh, in the symbolic meaning, was to be associated with the persecution, the violence, the treason and the massacre. You who hate good and love evil, who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my peoples flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh for the pot (Micah 3: 2-3). When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall (Psalm 27: 2). On the right they will devour, but still be hungry; on the left they will eat, but not be satisfied. Each will feed on the flesh of his own offspring (Is.9: 20). I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob (Is.49: 26). (See 2 Sam.23: 15-17 and Rev.17: 6). If Jesus was speaking only figuratively, He would have said, I assure you that unless you persecute, betray and massacre, you will not have life. He who eats on the violence has the eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. Some brethren add that Jesus words cannot be literal because Jesus says that the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing (Jn.6: 63). But, Jesus never says my flesh does not count; instead, He says the flesh. In the Bible, flesh refers not only to the physical body of a human being, but also to the sin in comparison tot he life of the Spirit. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death (Rom.7: 5 and 1 Cor.2: 14 to 3: 14). Who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires (Rom.8: 4-5). Jesus is not offering His flesh for consumption in that moment. This would have been cannibalism. What He was saying was that through the power of the Holy Spirit the Spirit gives life His body would soon by glorified. Remember that the context of this chapter is the Passover Meal (Jn.6: 4). He was pointing to the moment after His death, when He would give His disciples His transformed body through the Spirit, to give life to the world. The reason is that the Spirit gives life. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (Jn.5: 51)52. In Mass, it is not the body of the Man-Jesus that you and I receive. It is the glorified body of Christ. Christ does not suffer more, and there is no blood with red and white globules. For this reason, we do not say Body of Jesus, but Body of Christ. Just as the High Priest did in the Last Supper, the priest represents Christ in the Mass, and he pronounces the same words over the bread and the wine This is my body; this is my blood. And the Spirit gives life. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (Jn.6: 63). This same Spirit that gave life to the Creation (Gen.1: 2) and formed the life of the Messiah in the womb of Mary, transforms the bread into the Body of Christ. When God says a thing, it happens (Is.55: 11). His word is effective. This is my body (Mk.14: 22-24). He did not say, This symbolizes my body. Instead, He said, This IS. After Christ had said, This is my body, who would say to Him, No, Lord, this is not your body. It is bread and nothing more? When a person says, This is my house; this is my friend, he does not mean to say, This is a symbol of my house; this is a symbol of my friend 53. For 1500 years, even until after Luther, nobody questioned this belief.
52

In NOWHERE do we find that the Bible treats the word Spirit as symbolic. It is always as real as the material thing. Therefore, in this text, to eat His flesh is not the symbol of receiving the Spirit. The disciples would not have abandoned Jesus if He had been speaking symbolically. 53 When someone shows us a photograph and says, This is my son, he does not have to explain that the photograph is an image of the son and it is not the son himself. However, if the image in the photograph is another person, or it is a thing, then he will have to explain because he says that that is his son, which it is not.

This is a miracle, and it is not by accidence that Jesus Christ made this discourse after the multiplication of the bread. The miracle of nourishing the body. Now, Christ wished to nourish the soul. I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you (Jn.6: 26-27). Our forefathers ate the manna in the desertJesus said to them, It is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. (Jn.6: 31-32). Jesus affirmed that the food that He would give was superior to the multiplied bread and the manna (vv.31-32). If the bread and the wine are not converted into the Body and the Blood of Christ, then His words are lies. The normal bread and wine are not better than the manna and everything else He had miraculously fed to the 5000 people. In Luke 22: 19, we read, Do this in remembrance of me . The Evangelicals think that with this, Jesus means that the celebration of the Mass is nothing more than an intellectual remembrance, remembering everything Jesus did on that night. For the sake of them, Jesus is present only spiritually through the communion of the believers, when they celebrate together. However, we have to understand that Jesus was celebrating the Passover, and for the Jews for remembrance is not only to remember a historical act, a remembrance of something in the past, but a RELIVING. A memory for the Christians and the Jews is an effective proclamation of the powerful work of God being renewed. It means that the unrepeatable event of the Calvary is made a reality in the presence, by means of the Holy Spirit. On the altar, the bread and the wine do not remain as mere symbols; they are converted into Jesus Christ of that first Holy Friday in the place called Calvary (Mk.15: 21). (See also the first Chapter). It is something of the past that enters spiritually into the presence, as the Greek word ANAMNESIS expresses (1 Cor.11: 25). In Exodus 24: 8, we read, Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words. They prefigure the words of Jesus as when He took the wine and said, Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Mt.26: 27-28) To complete the covenant, Moses used the blood of the lamb, not just a mere symbol it. The same thing goes with Jesus, the Lamb of God, who signed the New Covenant in His Blood. It is important to note that the only place where Jesus spoke of the New Covenant in His Blood is in the Last Supper, when He shared the cup of wine. How did Paul understand the words of Jesus?54 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor.11: 27).

One of the arguments that the Protestant brethren use to say that the consecrated bread is not the body of Christ is this This is my body does not mean the identity; only the representation. If I show a photograph and say, This is my mother, nobody will jump to the conclusion that this piece of paper is my mother. (La Cena del Seor [The Supper of the Lord], Ronald Harris, p.8) This argument is illogical. Of course the photograph is not your mother, but the person in the photograph is. When he refers to the photograph as he says, This is my mother, he does not refer to the piece of paper of the photograph. If Jesus had shown a photograph of bread and says, This is my body, he would be referring Himself to the bread (in the photograph) and not to the photograph per se. In a similar manner, Jesus took the bread and said that it was His body. This argument of the Protestants does not work.

La Luz del Mundo (The Light of the World) Church speaks of its founder, Aarn Joaqun Flores, as another apostle (at the same level with Paul). In contradiction to his companion the (true) Apostle Paul, Aarn said, In 1928, (Aarn) returned again to the city Tepic, he placed himself before the same Cathedral of the Catholic Church to preach the Gospels. He told the people that the hosts are not Gods, since they are made with hands (of the priests)! (From the magazine La Luz del Mundo, No.2, 1994 January edition, p.4.)
54

Paul was speaking of the celebration of the Lords Supper. To sin against the bread is the sin against the Body (and not against the bread). To sin against the cup is to sin against the Blood (and not against the cup). The bread is the Body. It is the same as saying to sin against God is to sin against the Creator, because God and the Creator are one and the same. How could the sin be so grave if they were only bread and blood? (See v.29 ahead.) The Creator gives us not only little symbolic things. He sent His Son to take upon our week human flesh, and now the Son gives Himself to us. What an immense love! Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor.10: 16) A flyer called Roman Catholics and Communion, from the group Evangelical Outreach, argues that if Jn.6: 53 is to be interpreted literally (i.e., to eat His flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life), how could Jesus have saved Zacchaeus? After all, if the Communion was instituted only at the Last Supper? (Lk.22: 15-20) For the Catholic Church, this question is the same as asking how the Patriarchs of the Old Testaments could save themselves without knowing and believing in Jesus Christ. The answer is that God does not ask for the impossible. For example, to believe in Christ before His birth, or to receive the Communion before its institution by Christ (like in the case of Zacchaeus), or to have a mentally retarded believe in Christ for his salvation when the person does not have that mental capability. Jesus did not ask the good thief to go through baptism since it was not possible for him (Lk.23: 42-43). This flyer says that the host (bread) MUST have the taste of flesh if truly it is the flesh of Christ. However, this argument is like saying if Jesus is truly God, He must have appeared as Omnipotent God when He was on earth, instead of a regular Jew. Nevertheless, Jesus did appear as any other man. Who are we to say what God must or must not do? If He wants the (consecrated) host to remain the same in its taste, it is His wish. The Foresight in the Old Testament It is very important to read Exodus 12: 11 beforehand, in order to understand Jesus deeds and thoughts in celebrating the Last Supper during the feast of the Passover. Each year, when the Jews celebrate the Passover in their houses in accordance to Gods commands, they relive the flight from Egypt. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, On the tenth day of this mouth each man is to take a lamb Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses That same night they are to eat the meatand bread without yeast This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lords Passover (Ex.12: 1-11). For the Jews, this feast and its way of celebration are perpetual custom, by the command of Jehovah (Ex.12: 17). Why must they eat in haste as the Lord commands, if today the Jews do not have to escape from the Egyptians? The reason is that they are reliving the event. The same goes with Catholics when they celebrate Mass. We relive the Last Supper, the New Passover, when we depart from the slavery of sin. And, as we have seen above, it is more than an intellectual remembrance. It is not the same meaning like a national holiday in which one simply remembers the past without reliving it; he does not reenact the past event into the presence. Our Passover is different IT IS THE RELIVING OF THE LAST SUPPER, AN ENCOUNTER WITH JESUS IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD (Lk.24: 30-31). For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things (Ps.107: 9), Blessed is he whose help is the God Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God(God) gives food to the hungry (Ps.146: 5-7).

How would the feeling be if a father gives his hungry child an artificial apple (made of wax or wood) that symbolizes a real apple? That would be horrible! Jesus said, Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? Of you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Mt.7: 9-11). Nevertheless, the Protestant brethren say that Jesus gives us only a symbol of the Bread from Heaven. If we say that we have hunger, and if Jesus says, Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Jn.6: 27 and 51.) Will He give us something artificial that symbolizes Him, like the wax apple that only symbolizes the real food? Lord, we hunger for you? Which of you, if his son asks for breadhow much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! Brethren, perhaps you share the same thoughts of the Jews, that this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? To believe in Jesus is an act of faith and of the will, not of the human wisdom, according to St. Paul (1 Cor.1: 19). If you continue separating yourselves from the Church founded by Christ, you are following the example of some of those disciples who also separated themselves from Jesus at one point (Jn.6: 66). It is better to follow Peter, the leader of the Apostles and of us in accordance to Jesus desire (Jn.21: 15-17; Mt.16: 18-19). Return to the true Church because Jesus Himself has said that whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS ETERNAL LIFE (Jn.6: 54). If the manna of the Old Testament something miraculous yet only bread was called the grain of heavenbread of angels (Ps.78: 24-25), how much more significant is the Bread that comes down from Heaven: Jesus Christ! Jesus used wine, not grape juice. Many non-Catholic brethren try to convince us that Jesus took a type of non-alcoholic wine called mosto. The reason they are doing this is that they condemn the use of alcohol, and they even condemn Catholics who get themselves drunk. What does the Word of God say? The promise of God would include a place with wine. The threshing floors will be filled with grain; the vats will overflow with new wine and oil (Joel 2: 24). On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine (Is.25: 6). (See also Neh.8: 10.) God knows how to distinguish between the good and the bad use of wine, and He approves the good use of it. The Apostle also speaks of using wine for the sick. Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses (1 Tim.5: 23). If Jesus did not want us to drink wine, why did He change the water into wine at the wedding in Cana? (Jn.2.) In Jewish wedding, the feast would last for at least a week. (Gn.29: 27 and Judges 14: 10-12). Jesus multiplied the quantity of wine! It does not appear correct to say that this wine is non-alcoholic. The Greek word OINOS is used here in this case, and Paul used that same word to point out that one must not get drunk. Paul also used the word to condemn those Corinthians for getting drunk during the Supper of the Lord. (However, drinking wine with moderation is not a bad thing. Dont you have homes to eat and drink in? (1 Cor.11: 20-22). What he was trying to say was that this wine has alcohol. Why did he prohibit getting drunk if it was mere grape juice? In Jn.2: 7-10, the word wine is the same Greek work that Paul uses in his first letter to Timothy (3: 8 and 5: 23). The master of the banquet would not have claimed how great the wine was if it were just grape juice! The biblical theologian from the Assembly of God, Stanley M. Horton, says that mosto is new wine, not grape juice. It is a word that means an especially intoxicating wine made of sweet grapes. (El Espritu Santo revelado en la Biblia [The Holy Spirit revealed in the Bible], Edit Vida, USA, 1976, 1992, revised edition.) This writing is from a person who is against drinking! Jesus did drink wine, but He never got drunk. The Pharisees Him for not fasting, so much so that they called Him a glutton and a drunkard (Mt.11: 19). They would not have accused Him for drinking wine if He had not taken any.

It is clear that the Bible condemns the drunkards (Gal.5: 21; Eph.5: 18). However, He also speaks of other things about the use of wine. In Ps.10: 15, we read that God enables the production of wine that gladdens the heart of man. To drink wine is not the same as getting drunk. It is the excessive drinking that is bad. The deacons must not drink too much wine. Not given too much wine, says St. Paul (1 Tim.3: 8). The Catholic Church is against drunkenness (but not the drunkard). Her wisdom and her maturity allow her to distinguish between the good and the bad. The Bible says that to judge and to accuse the drunkard is worse than the drunkenness itself (Gen.9: 21-27). Quoting from Gal.5: 20-21, in criticizing those Catholics who get drunk, the non-Catholic brethren forget that Paul also condemned dissents, factions and divisions. Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed (Prov.9: 5). I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them (Hos.11: 4). The Jehovah Witnesses celebrate their supper only once a year. The Presbyterians do it four times a year, and the Baptists do it in general every month. However, the Catholic Church follows the example of the early Christians who celebrated the supper every week (Acts 20: 7 the first day of the week). Since the very first century with the early Christians, the Church has never past any week by without eating the bread and drinking the wine. I am not a Roman Catholic because, being an Evangelical, I believe that the participation of the Lords Supper (or the Holy Supper) is a symbolic commemoration of the death of Christ And, therefore, I would never be able to believe in the incredible assertions of the Catholic Church that the priests have the ministerial power to change the ordinary bread and wine into the very flesh and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ. 55 Now, we know that this manner of understanding the Catholic belief is incorrect. It is not the priest who makes the miracle, but the Holy Spirit Himself that acts through the priest.

What does the Early Church say?

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD): Letter to the Romans, 7: 3, and Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6: 2 to 7: 1 Ignatius : Letter to the Ephesians, 13: 1: Gather yourselves together with greater frequency to celebrate the Eucharist. Letter to the Romans: The bread is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the wine is His blood. Letter to the Philadelphians: The bread is flesh; the wine is blood. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1: Some bad people separate themselves from the Church because They would not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the same Flesh that take away our sins. Didaje (9): The offertory prayers of the Mass come from this chapter (14): The Mass is a pure sacrifice. This is the sacrifice that the Lord claimed, In all places and time, offer to me a pure sacrifice because I am the Great King. Justin Martyr (151): The First Apology, 65:66: Justin describes the Catholic Mass that was celebrated in his time. In chapter 66, Justin says that the bread is not any other bread, and the wine is not any other wine. Jesus, by the power of His word, nourishes us with His flesh and blood, the same flesh and blood according to our nature that He has taken upon Himself. Because we receive from the Apostles the words of Jesus who said, This is my blood, which will be given out to you. Irenaeus (189); Adversus Haereses, 4:32-33: The wine and the bread, upon the pronouncement of the words of consecration, are converted into the body and blood of Christ. Clement of Alexandria (191): The Instructor of Children (Paidagogos), 1:6:43:3.
55

Ibid., Fisher, p.75.

Tertullian (210): The Resurrection of the Dead, 8. Hippolytus (217): Fragments of the Commentaries on the Proverbs. Origen (248): Homilies on Numbers, 7:2. Cyprian (251): Epistle to Those Who Refuse to Assist, 15-16.

12. THE EUCHARIST: BANQUET AND SACRIFICE

The Mass (or the Eucharist) is the principal worship of the Catholic Church. This celebration is derived from the Last Supper, and it is divided into two parts the Word of God (the Old and New Testament) and the breaking of the bread mentioned in Acts 2: 42. A model of this celebration is that of Jesus with the disciples from Emaus. He first explained to them that He was the one referred to in the Old Testament, then He celebrated the breaking of the bread with them (Lk.24: 27-30). We see that the first Christians followed this example. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people because he intended to leave the next day Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left (Acts 20 7-11). A Sacrifice In this sacrament (The Lords Supper) Christ is not offered to his Father. He is not making any true sacrifice It is only a commemoration of the only offering of himself and by himself on the cross So that the papal sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it, (where?) it is the most abominable injury to the only sacrifice of Christ, the only propitiation for off the sins of the chosen. (Confesin de Westminster [Confession of Westminster], Ch.29, art. B.) The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass, in addition of being a banquet of the action of thanksgiving (Eucharist), it is also a sacrifice. In quoting Heb.9: 27-28, non-Catholics argue that the Mass cannot be a sacrifice because the sacrifice happened only once on the Calvary. The Church agrees that Jesus only died once and for all, for always. The Sacrifice of Christ on the cross was unique and sufficient for the expiation of all the sins; it can never be repeated. However, there is more to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is more correct to say that His death occurred only once and He did not repeat His death. But, we see that the Mass relives, re-enacts (to make it into the presence) the Sacrifice. Jesus does not die again. Nevertheless, the Mass is truly a sacrifice that applies to mankind the fruits of Calvary. It is a sacramental actualization of this same sacrifice. The Last Supper of the Lord and the Calvary form a unity56. The Last Supper happened during the feast of the Passover (Mk.14: 1). Jesus would have celebrated the Supper on other day, but He chose to do it during this feast. In doing so, He gave the feast a new meaning. In order to understand the Last Supper (Mass), we have to understand what Jesus did. The Passover is celebrated every year. The Jews still celebrate it today. It is the commemoration of the liberation of the Israelites for their slavery in Egypt. The Angel of death passed over each house that had the blood of lamb smeared on the doorframes. Then the family ate the lamb. It was not enough to smear the blood on the doorframes. They had to eat the lamb. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast (Ex.12: 8). The lamb had to be without blemish (v.5), as it prefigured Jesus who is the Lamb of God (Jn.1: 36), also without blemish. In this celebration, God fulfilled a union, a pact with His people. In Ex.24: 7-8, it narrates how Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of lamb so as to seal this pact. Now, Jesus celebrated this same feast, but He also transformed it. It is His blood, not the blood of lamb, that would bring salvation from the death of sin. The bread that is used in the Passover feast (and in the Mass) is without yeast (Mk.14: 1). With the bread in His hands, Jesus said, This is my body. We recall the things that we have said on St. John chapter 6 the discourse of Jesus on the eating of His flesh, which was passed out near the Passover (Jn.6: 41). It is clear in this chapter the link between the discourse and the celebration of the Last Supper. This is my blood of the new covenant (Mk.14: 24 and 1 Cor.11: 25), alluding to the Old Covenant from Exodus 24.
56

Thanks to Dr. Scott Hahn for contributing this part of the chapter.

The Four Cups In the celebration of the Passover meal, there were four cups involved, as we see in Lk.22: 17-20. Today, if we join in with a Jewish family for their Passover celebration, we can see that they celebrate it with 4 cups57. It was the third cup of wine that Jesus changed the wine into His blood. (As such, Paul identifies the cup of thanksgiving with the Eucharist in 1 Cor.10: 16). Christ said something that would have surprised the apostles. I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God (Mk.14: 25). What a surprise for the Apostles, because they knew that the fourth cup in the Passover meal still remained, but Jesus did not take it! Where is the last cup to finish the Passover feast? The feast that Jesus celebrated in the Last Supper had not ended. He would give them a new meaning of the cup and the feast. The Fourth Cup In Mk.14: 36, Jesus said, Abba, Father Take this cup away from me. This is the other cup of which Jesus spoke. Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me? (Jn.18: 11) The cup is the suffering and the death on the Cross. The celebration of the Last Supper continued into the Passion of the Lord. The Calvary would complete the Passover (and the Supper). It would be an only act of Pascal Sacrifice. The Calvary represents the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb. The tunic that Jesus wore was the same as that used by the Jewish priest for the sacrifice in the temple (Jn.19: 23). Jesus is the High Priest. On the way to the Calvary, the soldiers offered Jesus wine (Mk.15: 23), but He did not take it. He had said that He would not drink it again until that day when He would drink it anew in the kingdom of God (14: 25). Later on the Cross, Jesus said, I thirst. Would it be that Jesus had a sudden thirst? No. It had been hours that Jesus suffered the thirst from the lost of blood (and from the climate in the desert). However, while on the Cross, He wished to finish the Last Supper (the last cup of the Passover), so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled (Jn.19: 28). The soldiers then gave Him sour wine (known as atum, a type of wine like vinegar for the common soldiers). This time Jesus drank it (Jn.19: 29). They gave it to Him with a hissop stick, the same type of stick the Jews used to smear the blood of lamb at their houses (Ex.12: 12). Then Jesus said, It is finished. What is finished if Jesus has not resurrected yet? He was resurrected for our justification, says St. Paul (Rom.4: 25). It is the Last Supper of the Passover that is finished. The Passover celebrated the event of the death of the first born from Egypt. Now Jesus is the one who is the first born sacrificed for our salvation, not only to the Jews, but also to the whole world. He is the Passover that sets us free (1 Cor.5: 7); the blood of the New Covenant that is shed for many (Mk.14: 24). As we have seen, Jesus did not finish the feast at the table. For the Jews it was not enough to smear the doorframes to save themselves. They also had to eat the lamb. For us, those belong to the New Covenant, we also have to celebrate it. Do this in remembrance of me (1 Cor.11: 24). It is not by accidence that the Word of God links to remember/to recollect with sacrifice in Heb.10: 3. The only two places where the holocaust is spoken -- Lev.24: 7 and Num.10: 10 (the subject in Ps.37 and Ps.39) -- make a link between the bread and the sacrifice. Therefore, Paul says, Let us keep the Festival (1 Cor.5: 8), so as to perpetuate the sacrifice. Or, as Jesus put it, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (Jn.5: 26). To save themselves from death, the Jews in Egypt ate the lamb, and not just things that represented lamb. In like manner, Catholics do not believe that they eat a mere symbol of the Lamb of God. Moses did not sprinkle something that only symbolized the blood of lamb (Ex.24: 8).

57

The first cup is called Kadush. The celebration really begins with the second cup that is taken after the recitation of Psalm 113. The third cup is the cup of thanksgiving that is taken after the thanksgiving, the praying over the bread, and the singing of the Hallel (Psalms of Praise, No. 114-118). In Mark, Jesus sang these psalms, but He did not conclude the celebration with the drinking of the forth cup that is called the cup of consummation. The Gospel of Luke has changed a little the order of the words of Christ. All Biblical scholars know that Luke based his writing on the Gospel of Mark. To learn more on the four cups and how the Jews celebrate the Passover meal, please read chapter 15 of La Plegaria Eucarstica (The Eucharistic Prayer) by Luis Maldoado, pp.166-170.

Jesus Christ is our sacrifice. He was sacrificed once in Calvary, but we have to eat His flesh to fulfill the Union. The Last Supper was a revival of the Passover. The Catholic Mass is a revival of the Last Supper. It is not only a recollection. The Mass is not another sacrifice. It is the participation in the same and only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, equaled to the Jews participation in the Passover today of that distant night when the celebration of the liberation from Egypt took place. The past is made present ANAMNESIS Do this in remembrance of me. We have to distinguish between the death of Christ and the sacrifice on the Cross. The Catholic Church knows that Christ died only once for ever. He does not die in the Mass. However, His sacrifice is made present in each Mass. The holy Meal is infinitely tied in with the sacrifice of Calvary. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes (1 Cor.11: 26). John presents the celestial Mass It was a Sunday, the day of the Lord (Rev.1: 10), that the author of Revelation saw Jesus. Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne (Rev.5: 6). How did John see Jesus? The triumphant king? The Lion of the tribe of Judah? He saw them in their glory, such as the immolated Lamb. Spiritually, the sacrifice continues. The Mass reflects and participates in this celestial celebration, so said the Fathers of the early Church. The author of Hebrews speaks of the possibility of which Jesus would be sacrificed again for our sins. If they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (Heb.6: 6). Obviously, Jesus is not crucified in the same manner like in Calvary. The meaning is spiritual. We take part in this cup, this sacrifice. For your sake we face death all day long. We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered (Rom.8: 36). Jesus asked, Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with (Mk.10: 38). I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (Ga.2: 20). Jesus clearly refers to the sacrifice during the Supper. The cup is the new covenant in my blood (1 Cor.11: 25). (See Jer.31: 31.) He sealed the New Covenant between God and the people with His blood. The new sacrifice in the blood of Christ is efficacious for sealing the New Covenant, just as the sacrifice of the animals did for the Old Covenant. (See 1 Cor.10: 14-21.) Another link between the Last Supper and the Cross is the water and the blood that came out from the side of the Crucified. The early Church understood the water and the blood as the symbols that represent the Baptism and the Eucharist. We Catholics do not believe that Jesus is sacrificed in a bloody manner. The Apocalypse shows the immolated Lamb in the center of the throne (Rev.5: 6). Immolated, like sacrificed, is not synonymous with death. Paul said, I urge you, brothers, in view of Gods mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God (Rom.12: 1). For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us keep the Festival (1 Cor.5: 8). It is prefigured in the first Passover when the Jews were ordained to celebrate the festival always. God said to them, This is a day you are to commemorate, for the generation to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord a lasting ordinance Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come (Ex.12: 14-17). More biblical proves The Old Testament prophesizes that Christ would offer a sacrifice to God with bread and wine. Melchizedek, a priest that prefigures Christ, offered bread and wine, and he blessed God (Gen.14: 18-20). Ps.110 says that you are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek (v.4). In Hebrews, Christ is this priest (Heb.5: 5-6). A priest is a person who offers the sacrifice. In Jesus case, He is both the priest and the offering, as He offers Himself as the sacrifice. Where can we find the form of Jesus eternal sacrifice (a priest forever) that would be in agreement with the sacrifice offered by Melchizedek and, therefore, distinct from the Calvary? The sacrifice of Melchizedek was in the form of bread and wine. Catholics believe that the only form that fulfills Melchizedeks happens in the Mass in which Jesus offers Himself to the Father forever in sacrifice under the appearance of bread and wine.

We see that the Supper began the Sacrifice of Jesus, which culminated on the altar of the Cross. This is my body given for you This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you (Lk.22: 19-20). In both cases, the verbs given and poured out are in the present tense, which show that they are referring not only to the sacrifice of the Cross. In addition, given and poured out indicate a selfimmolation in the Supper. The prophet Malachi said, In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name (Mal.1: 11). Christ is the pure offering. The sacrifice of the Calvary happened only once and only in a place. What did Malachi prophesize, then? For Catholics, it is in the Mass that is celebrated every hour throughout the world, in which the sacrifice of Christ prophesized by Malachi is carried out. If this is not the case, how can we say that the prophecy is fulfilled? Hebrews 9: 25-27 shows that Jesus did not die any more. He offered His life only once, and was enthroned as the King of Justice. King of Salem and priest of God Most High (Heb.7: 1-3). It is exactly in this way that the Father looks upon the perfect and perpetual offering of His Son, Jesus. If it had ended, there would have been no eternal sacrifice. You are priest forever (Heb.5: 6). Now there were many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office. But, because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood (Heb.7: 23-24). The unbloody sacrifice of the Mass brings about the merits of Jesus Christ, obtained for us once and for all on the Cross. Even though Jesus did not die any more, He offered to the Father perpetually His blood that is poured out on Calvary. If not, there would be no need for an altar on earth as expressed in Heb.13: 10 -- We have an altar from which those who minister (the Jews) at the tabernacle have no right to eat . Dont you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? (1 Cor.9: 13). The once and forever sacrifice of Christ is made present on our altars in the Mass. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise (Heb.13: 15). By and large the Protestant brethren who fix their attention on Hebrew chapter 9 oppose the Catholic teachings on the sacrifice of the Mass. I am not a Roman Catholic because, as an Evangelical, I believe that when Christ died on the Cross, He died once and forever. For this reason, I can never believe in the heretical fantasy of the Catholic Church that declares that every time the priests offer the Mass, Christ is crucified again on that Romanistic altar 58. In the book A Catholic Investigates the Gospel (pp.21-22), the Evangelical author assumes the following dialogue with a Catholic: I am going to assume that you are the Lord, Jesus. You are on the right hand side of God, looking at all the events in the Universe. You are the object of admiration of the millions and millions of the angels and saints Now, countless number of times during the day, the demand from the various sick worms on earth arises to you, saying, Come down immediately, Jesus. I wish to sacrifice you and eat you. How does that seem to you? What would His reaction be? The Catholic answers, I would say that they were crazy and blasphemous. The Evangelical answers, among many other things, that Christ would say, I no longer die. Death does not dominate me. Brothers, in the Mass the priest says, Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and the blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The priest does not say, Come down immediately, Jesus. I wish to sacrifice you. It is the Spirit that makes the miracle. In addition, Jesus is omnipresent. He would have no need to come down. On the other hand, to call those priests sick worms is a fault against the commandment of love.

58

Ibid., Fisher, p.75.

For us it is an error in the interpretation. Hebrews chapter 9 examines the Old Covenant. Moses takes the blood of the calves and male goats to purify the tabernacle (Heb.9: 19-25). Under the Old Law, the sacrifice had to be repeated for the remission of sins. In the Christian dispensation, the blood of Christ was poured out only once, but it is offered continually to the Father. How can this be possible? Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb.13: 8). In fact, the Bible says that the Sacrifice is offered from the foundation of the world. The Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world (Rev.13: 8). This (sacrifice) is not set in time 59. Whatever Jesus did in the past is the present for God now. God can make the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary become present for us in the Mass. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes (1 Cor.11: 26).

What does the Early Church say?

The Mass is a sacrifice Irenaeus (180-199): Adversus Haereses, 4:17:5 Justin Martyr : Dialogue with Trypho. He writes that the Mass is a sacrifice, p.41. Cyprian (252): Letter from Cyprian to a certain Cecil, 53:14. Cyril of Jerusalem (350): Catechetical Lectures, 23; Mystagogue, 5:8

(The Catholic Church) assures that the bread and the wine are transformed, by virtue of the authority of the priest, into the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus, in such a way that the Soul and Divinity of Jesus are present therein. The Church does not say whether it is the earthly or the glorified body of Christ that is consumed by those good Catholics Anlisis del ROMANISMO (Analysis of the Romanism), by J. A. Phillips, p.107. What a lie! The Church does say what nature of the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist. What type of a analysis is that!? Some people would argue that it was not possible that in the Last Supper, Jesus had changed the bread and the wine into His body and blood. This would mean that Jesus had two bodies the normal corporal body and the bread that has been changed into his body and blood. Jesus did not vanish to change Himself into the bread and wine. His normal corporal body remained present together with the Apostles. Mr. Phillips says, What was his body? Precisely the little fragment of bread that Christ had in his hand in that moment. In other words, Christ had two bodies (p.108). However, why set a limit on Jesus? How can Christ be simultaneously present in two places is a mystery, just as God is present everywhere. As Keating says, A mystery is a religious truth that cannot be fully understood through reason, but that does not mean that it is impossible. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it cannot be possible (p.243). We have seen that the consecrated bread is not the same body of Christ that is not yet transformed in the resurrection.
59

13. Baptism An Ordinance or A Sacrament?

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor.6: 11). Some people declare that to be born through water and the spirit means baptism in water Water is a symbol of THE WORD OF GOD60. To support his stand in his writing, the author of this booklet quotes the first epistle of Peter. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God (1 Peter 1: 23). He also quotes from the letter of Paul to the Ephesians. Just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word (Eph.5: 25-26). For the Evangelicals, Baptism is nothing more than an external sign of an internal conversion. It is nothing more than a testimony. It does nothing in the soul. Baptism is not that important for salvation. What is necessary is to believe in Jesus, to accept Him as personal Savior. With these they are saved. If one is never baptized, it is no big deal. In the flyers distributed by the Evangelicals, we read, In the moment in which you confide totally in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you are forever saved in that moment. ( Fellowship Tract League ) In the Tesoros del cielo (Treasures of heaven ) flyers, written by Mel Gerrard, it says, Did you receive Jesus in your heart through faith? If you do, you are born again! In another work of R. A. Torrey, and distributed by The Baptist Evangelical Church, we read, Nobody can be saved unless he has been born again through the Spirit of God. We are born again through the Holy Spirit of God by means of his words. Here we see that salvation consists of nothing more than believing and trusting in Jesus. It is be born again from the Spirit through the Word of God. The Catholic Church says that salvation is a gift of God. However, it implies much more than mere act of believing. To trust is very important, but it does not encompass all. There is something more, according to the Bible. While the Protestant brethren say, In the moment in which you confideyou are saved, the Bible says differently, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk.16: 16). The Bible adds the words and is baptized. It does not say that he who believes and is born again and NOTHING ELSE. Neither does it say that to be born again is to be born from the Spirit only. The word of God says that to be born again, (other possible translation is to be born from above) it is through water and the Spirit through these two things. Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn.3: 5). To show with His actions what He had just said to Nicodemus, Jesus began to baptize so that we would understand its necessity. After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized (Jn.3: 22). Even though at times He allowed His disciples to baptize (4: 2) in His place (only with His authority), so that the people would not think that He did the baptism in imitation of John (see 3: 23 and 4: 1).

60

Religin o Cristo (Religion or Christ), by M. R. DeHann, Las Americas edition, Puebla, Mexico, 3 rd edition, 1990, p.42. This book contradicts itself on the topic of religion. First, it makes us understand that religion is bad (as the title expresses). Each time the word religion is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with works that are bad as well (p.5). Later, he speaks of Abels pure religion that is good (p.28). Therefore, are all religions bad? Then, the author returns to the topic of religion as something bad. What do you have today? RELIGION OR CHRIST? Can you say I KNOW THAT I AM SAVED? If not, then, forget your religious ardours (p.36) What went on with Abels pure religion! (See chapter 16 regarding the topic Once Saved Always Saved?).

We see here the two things water and the Spirit. Also, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing (baptism in Greek) of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3: 5). Therefore, salvation is more than mere believing. (In fact, according to James 2: 19, even the demons believe , but they are not saved). The Sciptures do not show that baptism enters within the plan of God for our salvation. Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, have our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water (Heb.10: 22). Peter did not say, Convert yourselves Accept Jesus and nothing more, and you will be saved. Instead, he says, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 38). In this context, we see that with the believing and baptism, a person receives forgiveness for his sins and the Holy Spirit. In speaking with many Evangelicals, they would tell me that baptism is nothing more than an external sign of a conversion to Christ, and that baptism does not cause any change within man. Baptism does not save. However, we read, And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also not the removal of dirt from the body (other Bibles have this translated as physical stains, the cleansing of the body or bodily filth) but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3: 21). In baptism, we are born again and are renewed through the Holy Spirit. The Confession of Westminster, formulated in 1646, has become the doctrinal norm of the Presbyterian Church. Even though they accept baptism by immersion, the form that they use most often is by aspersion. Baptism has nothing to do with the regeneration. Rather, it signifies a union with Christ and with his body. That is to say, the visible church. Pbro, Les Thompson, El Cristianismo Romano y No Romano (The Roman and non-Roman Christianism), El Faro publications, Mexico, 1988, p.76. To say that baptism does not regenerate, one simply has to read Titus 3: 5, the washing of rebirth Is it true that baptism does not make any difference in the soul and that it is only an external testimony? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16). With these texts we see the truth of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Baptism is more than a mere ordinance as some Protestants claim. It is a sacrament that effects a cleansing of sins. John the Baptist says that the baptism from Jesus is with the Spirit and fire (Mt.3: 11). Why fire? This indicates that baptism from Jesus is not a mere bathing of a persons external. Rather, it purifies interiorly, just as fire bakes not only the exterior of things, but the interior as well. Now we can answer the affirmation of Mr. DeHann who in the aforementioned quote says that the water, in Jn.3: 11, is only a symbol of the Word of God, not the water of truth. When Paul speaks of the washing with water through the word (Eph.5: 26), he is speaking of the Trinitarian formula that has to accompany the baptism. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt.38: 19). The mere deed of placing someone in water without pronouncing these words is not baptism. It will only be getting oneself wet. In reading the context, we see that Peters saying about being born again through the living and enduring Word of God (1 Peter 1: 23) is about believing in the preaching of the Word of God that remains forever . To believe in such a way that the person trusts in Jesus Christ and be baptized in His name. His faith Take a look at what you will lose if you are not baptized. Or dont you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the deadwe too may live a new life (Rom.6: 3-4. See also Col.2: 12). It is sad that the Evangelicals re-baptize the Catholics who have been converted into their church. Christ died and was buried only once and baptism is the participation in His death. This is not to be repeated. It is true that the bad thief who had been forgiven by Christ was not baptized. However, how could he receive baptism in his situation?

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal.3: 26). It is not just in accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord that will bring me to Christ. I must be baptized as well. I tell you, my brethren, that I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord, but it is not through this that I have been born again. I was born again through what Jesus, our Life and Salvation, did unto me through the Holy Spirit when I was baptized. It is very important to accept Christ as Savior and Lord, but that was not what Jesus Christ said to Nicodemus. Perhaps you would ask me, Why do they baptize children? Well, you may want to continue reading the following pages. And the children? We do not baptize babies, but we encourage the parents to dedicate their children to the Lord in a service of public adoration (p.21), Of God, Who We Are And What We Believe, Gospel Publishing House (revised edition, 1985). The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people They will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. (Jer.31: 31-34) The Protestant brethren say that one must be an adult (or, at least to have reached the age of reason) before the person receives the baptism. They use the example of Jesus, saying that He was an adult when John baptized Him. The baptism of John is different from that of the Christians. Jesus received the baptism not because He repented or He was to receive the Holy Spirit. He had the Spirit always. John the Baptist teaches us the difference between those two types of baptism. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mk.1: 8. See also Acts 11: 16 and 19: 3-5). John did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . Jesus received the baptism to show His authority. As Jesus was coming out of the water, (John) saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, You are my Son, whom I love. With you I am well please. (Mk.10: 11) Clearly, if a person thinks of the baptism as a mere external sign of conversion, it is reasonable to baptize only the adults who have accepted Christ. However, is it true that baptism is nothing more than an external sign? We see that the truth is quite different. Is it correct to follow the model of Jesus baptism as a norm? No. The Church recognizes the importance of baptizing the adults. The rite is called The Rite of Adult Christian Initiation. It is a process of at least a year of studies, reflections and prayer with the Bible. Also, it is clear that, from the beginning, the Christians baptized babies, as we will see ahead. Reasons for baptizing babies. John 3: 5 says that to enter into the Kingdom of God, one must be born again of water. It does not say that this rule is to be applied only to adults. Therefore, a child has the same right to enter into the Kingdom of God because the kingdom of God belongs to such as these (LK.18: 16). According to Psalm 51: 5-7 (and Rom.3: 10 and 23), we are all sinners from our birth. Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Also, like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath (Eph.2: 3). For since death came through a man in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor.15: 21-22). How is one united to Christ? It is through faith and through baptism.

For two thousand years, from the time of Abraham until the coming of Christ, God showed His people that He desired the children to belong to the Old Covenant with Him. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come You must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come (Gen.17: 7 and 9). In the Old Testament, the sign of entering into the covenant with God was the circumcision. With Christ, the sign was changed to baptism. The New Covenant is now a circumcision from Christ. We are buried with Christ in baptism. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature. Not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ -- having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col.2: 11-12). As we can see, we are brought closer to Christ through baptism (Gal.3: 27), and Christ commanded that the children participate. Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Mt.19: 14). Spiritual Circumcision The Jewish children formed part of the Old Covenant through the circumcision. Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants (Gen.9: 89). Even now, declares the Lord, return to me with all your heart Blow the trumpet in Zion, declare a holy fast, call a sacred assembly. Gather the people, consecrate the assembly; bring together the elders, gather the children, those nursing at the breast (Joel 2: 12-16). Will it be that the New Covenant , which is meant not only for the Jews but for all the nations, is more limited/restricted than the Old Covenant? The Family of God includes all. The promise of God is for you and your children (Acts 2: 39). Then the king called together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. He went up to the temple of the Lord with the men of Judah, the people of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets all the people from the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the Lord. The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the Lord to follow the Lord and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all the people pledged themselves to the covenant (2 Kg.23: 1-3). It says that ALL THE PEOPLE pledged themselves to the covenant. Among the people, there were those from the least (in that society, those that were considered the least were not only by their age, but also by their status and place in the society). Surely, parents had to pledge the covenant in His name. See, the days are coming it is Yahweh who speaks when I will make a new covenant... Deep within them I will plant my law, writing it on their hearts. Then I will be their God and they shall be my people They will all know me, the least no less than the greatest it is Yahweh who speaks since I will forgive their iniquity and never call their sin to mind (Jer.31: 31-34). The Bible says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (Rom.4: 3), and the sign of faith of the adult Jews was the circumcision similar to that of Abraham (Rom.4: 11-12). Nevertheless, God commanded the circumcision of children so that they would form part of the family of God (Lev.12: 3 and Ex.12: 48). Paul understood the crossing of the Red Sea as the foreshadowing of Baptism. For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fat, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor.10: 1-2). Were they all adults only that passed through the Red Sea? Baptism is to be born again into the family of God (Eph.2: 6-19) and the parents take the decision of bringing the child into this family. When a child is born in a family, he does not make an arrangement with his parents beforehand. Perhaps we have to wait until we are fully conscientious before we consider ourselves truly the children of our parents? The Apostles followed the same idea. Peter says on the day of the Pentecost, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise us for you and your children (Acts 2: 38-39).

A child has the right of being clothed with Christ (Gal.3: 27) and participating in His death (Rom.6: 3-4). For this reason, the Church baptized children from the beginning, following the footsteps of the Apostles. Paul said, For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy (1 Cor.7: 14). The entire household was baptized In the New Testament, we see that the entire household was baptized. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved you and your household (Acts 16: 31). Notice that the head of the household makes the decision for the rest. That is to say, Paul and Silas tell the jailer that if he believes in the Lord, he and his household will be saved. They do not say, You and your household believe in the Lord Jesus He and all his family were baptized (Acts 16: 33). This phrase would be referring to his children because, being a jailer a lowly position in the society, it would be almost impossible to afford servants. If he had had no children, the Bible would have said, He and his wife were baptized. Paul baptized the household of Stephanas (1 Cor.1: 16). In Acts we also read that the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message Then Peter said, Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They had received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts. 10: 44-48) Among those people, surely some of them would include babies in the household and children who had been brought there by their parents, and surely they would not have been excluded in the baptism (see v.24). Read Acts 18: 8, we will encounter Crispus, a rich man. Because of his wealth, he might have a big family and many servants as well. Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord, and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized . For the sick people Sin is a sickness in the soul. It is an indisposition in my relationship with God, as well as a slavery. Jesus replied, I tell you the truth, every one who sins is a slave to sin (Jn.8: 34). Jesus came for the sinners whom He described as the sick (Mk.2: 17). Children are born with a fallen human nature, and are stained with the original sin. Through the disobedience of Adam, this human nature is ill and is in need of healing from Jesus through the washing by the baptism (1 Peter 3: 21). Which father, if his child is ill, would tell him, You are a child and you are not able to make your own decision. Therefore, I am not going to bring you to the hospital until you are older and then you decide whether you like to go? The child might die! Do you remember that in baptism we are clothed with Christ? Will not the fathers of their children make sure that their children have food, medicine and all the needs taken care of? Do they ask their children first if they wish to be dressed before they put the clothes on the children? The answer, of course, is no. The baptism of children shows that union with God is first an initiative of God and not of man, because a child does not know anything. The history of salvation shows us that God always takes the initiative in His relationship with us. When we were still powerless when we were Gods enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son (Rom.5: 6 and 10). We were Gods enemies and God acted through Jesus Christ without asking for our opinions or waiting for our possible reply. Even though the babies did not know Christ, the people also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them (Lk.18: 15). The totally gratuitous grace of salvation is particularly manifested in the baptism of children. Jesus never said to baptize the adults only. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Mt.28: 19-20). It shows here how to make disciples. The order of the words is interesting. Jesus uses baptizing before teaching. While the Evangelicals say that we have to teach the person before baptizing him. (A child cannot be baptized because he does not have to ability to learn yet.)

The faith that is required for the baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called for development. In the Catholic Church, during the baptism, the parents and the godparents promise to teach and accompany the child in his growth in the faith and in the maturing in his relationship with Jesus Christ. If some do not fulfill their promise, that is another problem altogether. The Methodists baptize children by immersion, by spilling or by sprinkling the water. The Presbyterians do not consider the necessity of baptism for the salvation, but they do urge for the infant baptism. We end with a letter from some parents to their baptized children 61. Dear Child, Today we wish to baptize you in Christ Jesus, immersing you in the death and the resurrection of God in whom we believe. In this letter, which you will be able to read later, we want to explain to you the reason why. It is not by imposing upon you an option by which we have wished to baptize you, but for opening before you a path of freedom so that, beginning tomorrow, you will freely choose the path and take it. We have wished to give you the best we have. We believe that this little seed of faith, sowed today in the garden of your heart, will germinate to the light of the day and in the darkness of the night, in the most secret part of your life. We immerse you today in the ocean of the love of Jesus Christ, so as to give you a new strength, greater than us and greater than you. This strength will be the power for your battles, the lucidity for your choices, the light for your paths. It will be your hope and your joy, for the conquest of the forces of evil. We have wished to baptize you in Christ, so that you would become a free man and that you would remain firm in the midst of this world that, at times, is crazy. And, above all, that you would become a brother or sister who constructs, with God, the future of our earth It is Jesus, and only Him, your Savior and Lord, who will mark for you a path of peace and freedom tomorrow. For above your anxieties and miseries, He will open the House of His Father for you and, in your death, He will bring forth His eternity. In the catacombs In the ancient Roman catacombs, where the early Christian martyrs would enter, we read the inscriptions on the tombs of the dead infants. One of them reads, Here rests Arquilla, recently baptized, died on February 23 at the age of 1 year and 5 months. Among the other discovered epitaphs, we find the followings: 149. Born with the name of Pascasio Severo, on the Thursday of the Easter week, the day before the ninth of April who lived for six years. Received the grace on the eleventh of the calendar of May and deposed his baptismal albs in the sepulchre on the eighth day of the Easter . 151. Veneriosa is buried here. Recently baptized. Lived for six years, died on the eighth of the ides of August. 152. To the innocent Domisio. Recently baptized. Lived for three years and 30 days. Do we have to be baptized by immersion?
61

Quoted in Gua de las Dificultades de la Fe Catlica (Guides of the Difficulties of the Catholic Faith), Pierre Descouvermont, DDB Edition, Espaa, 1992, p.546. It is interesting to know that some Evangelicals make up things that are not in the Bible. For example, Callings to the altar and The prayer of the sinner that will save the person forever. We do not encounter this prayer in the Word of God.

We have seen that the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River by John the Baptist is not the model for us, but the Protestant brethren point to the event to justify their saying that we have to be baptized by immersion. Some of them even go so far as saying that it must be done in a river. James W. Dale, a Protestant theologian, wrote a 5-volume book, investigating the use of the word baptizo (Greek) in the Bible and in the early Church. He concluded that the meaning of the word indicates the non-necessity for baptism by immersion. From the beginning, baptism by immersion has always been only an option. People were also baptized by the pouring of water, as it is mentioned in the book Didache. The book mentioned that the followers of Christ were baptized not only by immersion, but also by the pouring of water on their head. In regard to baptism, baptize in this manner: Say with authority all these things I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; in real water. If you do not have water, baptize with other type of liquid. And, if you are unable to do it with cold water, do so with hot water. If you do not have both, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Didache, 60-90 AD, 7: 1-3)62. There was a time in which the Presbyterians baptized by the pouring of water. The same went with the Founder of the Baptist Chruch, Roger Williams, who baptized himself in 1639 because, according to him, he could not find anybody who had the authority to baptize. Acts 2: 41 says that more than 3000 people were baptized in Jerusalem, where rivers were not available, and the water was scarce. In addition, it would be illegal to immerse 3000 people in the public well because the water was meant for drinking. Speaking of the jailer who was baptized in the night (Acts 16: 33), it is difficult to believe that they had walked all the way to the river for their baptism. After all, it was dangerous to leave the house after the sun had set. There were neither policemen nor streetlights in the streets. To make baptism by immersion an obligation makes us think of some very difficult places such as the North Pole, where things are frozen, as well as of those paralyzed people who are bedridden. If baptism is so important, as Jesus says (Mk.16: 16), why do we have to make it so difficult? Not all who insist that baptism must be by immersion, because they look upon the baptism of Jesus in the river as a model, are consistent in their belief. The reason is that they baptize their converts in swimming pools and water tanks, which are not running water like the river. If we have to be absolutely faithful to this model, we would have to wait until we were 30 years old, and be baptized in the Jordan River, yet without being in the name of the Trinity. We would also be dressed like Jesus and John (who would be the model for the pastor that performs the baptism). The Protestant brethren quote Acts 8: 39 Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water However, went down into the water and came up out of the water do not necessarily imply a total immersion. It might imply that they were in the water at knee level, or at the waist level, and Philip (or John, in the case of Jesus baptism) poured water on his head.

62

No.13. 1311 AD. BAPTISM. In the Council of Rabena, baptism of Infusion or Ablution was used to substitute the true Baptism of immersion. Pequea Recopiliacin de Estudios Bblicos Elementales (Little Digest of Elementary Biblical Studies) a manual made for The Light of the World Church, for the workers of evangelical workers. The Trinitarian formula for baptism Father, Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned in Didache (written while the Apostle John was still alive), shows clearly that the Light of the World Church IS NOT THE RESTORATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH because they baptize only in the name of Jesus. What Aaron has received, he presumes it is through revelation. (However, we have proof that he did not have such revelation. Refer to the book by this same author, Cuando la Luz Obscurece [When the Light is Obscured].) Some Pentecostals are baptized only in the name of the Lord, because they say that father, son and the holy spirit are mere titles, not names. Lets compare Jn.16: 23-24 with Mt.6: 9 and Lk.11: 2. Jesus invites us to pray in His name. Nevertheless, He actually teaches us to pray the Our Father. Therefore, if we pray in the manner that Jesus has taught us, we are not praying only in the name of Jesus.

What does the Early Church say?

1) To be born again through water and Spirit. How to interpret Jn.3: 5. Many Protestant brethren say that baptism is only a symbol. They deny that Jesus was speaking about baptism in Jn.3: 5. The water, they say, is the word of God. If we look at everything the early Christians had said about this particular verse, all will agree that it is referring to baptism. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND a Father of the Church who says that Jn.3: 5 is referring to some other thing. Justin Martyr : First Apology, 61. Iranaeus: Fragmentary text, 34. Tertullian: Baptism, 12:1. Clementine Recognition: (221 AD), 6:9. Cyprian: Letters, 71 [72]:1; Texts, 72 [73]:21. The Ninth Council of Carthage : (256 AD). Cyril of Jerusalem (350): Catechetical Lectures, 3:4. 2) On the existence of the Original Sin Hermas: The Shepherd, 9:16:2. Theophilus of Antioch: To Autolyclus, 2:25. Irenaeus (180-190): Adversus Haereses, 2:23:2 and 5:16:3. Tertullian (199): The Soul, 3:2 and Against Marcion, 5:9:5. Origen: Commentaries on Romans, 5:9 and Homilies on Jeremias, 8:1. 3) Baptism saves and regenerates Hermas (140): The Shepherd, 4:3:1-2 and 9:16:2-4 (III, 7): The waters of baptism save us. (IV, 3): Let us go down into the water for our sins. Letter of Barnabas (70): 11:1-10. Justin Martyr (between 148 to 155): The Apology, 61: 14-17. (I, 61): We obtain the forgiveness of our sins in the water. We are reborn. The washing is called illumination (PHOTISMOS in Greek). (66): To be baptized is to be washed for the remission of the sins. Theophilus (181): To Autolyclus, 12:16. Tertullian (200-206): Baptism, 1:1, 5:6 and 7:2. Clement of Alexandria (200): The Instructor of Children (Paidagogos), 1:6:26:1 Origen (245): Homilies on Numbers, 7:2; Commentaries on Romans, 5:9. Cyprian (246): To Donatus, 4. Cyril of Jerusalem (350): Catechetical Lectures, 3:10:12. The actual doctrine of the Church says that while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic in order to be saved, it is possible that people could be saved in some circumstances, even though they have not been initiated completely into the Catholic Church. It is possible due to their baptism by desire or baptism by blood. (Remember that none of these is a sacramental baptism.) The Early Church said the same thing. Ignatius (107): Letter to the Philadelphians, 3:3-4:1. Justin Martyr (151): The First Apology, 46. Theophilus of Antioch (180): To Autolyclus. Irenaeus (189): Adversus Haereses, 3:24:1. Tertullian (203): Baptism, 16:1. Clement of Alexandria (209): Stromateis, 1:5. Origen (248): Against Celsus, 4:7 and Homilies on Josue, 3:5. Cyprian (249-255): Letters, 61 [4]:4 and 51 [55]:24, and The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6. Letters, 72: [73]:21-22 Lactantius (307): The Divine Institutions, 4:30:11-13.

Cyril of Jerusalem (350): Catechetical Lectures, 3:10/ 4) Baptizing children Irenaeus (180): Adversus Haereses, 2:22:4. Hippolytus (215): The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16. Origen (244): Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3 and Commentaries on Romans, 5:9. Cyprian (251): Letter to Fidus, 64:2 and 64:5. Council of Carthage : He condemns the postponement of baptism. Origen: Commentaries on Romans, 5:9. The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of baptizing children. 5) How to baptize The Early Church admitted three ways of baptism immersion, the spraying and the pouring of water. Didaje (7): Baptize in this manner In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; in running water. If you do not have running water, pour the water on the head three times. Hippolytus (215): The Apostolic Tradition, 21. Origen (250): Commentaries on Romans, 5:8-9. Cornelius I (251): Letter to Fabius of Antioch, 6:43. Cyprian (254): Letter to a Certain Magnusu, 69 [76]: 12 and Letter to Jubaianus, 73:18.

14. FAITH ALONE?

We have seen that the principal affirmation of the Prostestanism, from Martin Luther and the rest of the Reformers, are Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides. We deal with the first one now only the Bible is the very guide of Christianism in the matter of faith. Now we look at the second, sola fides, which says that only faith will lead us to salvation. Neither the work nor the Sacraments, not the Sacraments or the Church, will save us. Only faith in Christ justifies us. Luther and Calvin said that this belief was the principle on which the Church was built. In fact, the Protestant theologians say that it was the disagreement on the nature of justification that separated them from the Church. That is to say, if they were in error, there would have been no reason for us to continue being separated, since Jesus especially and deeply desires the unity (Jn.17: 21-22). Is it true that the Bible says faith alone? As we will see, the answer is No. The Apostle James taught just the opposite. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone (James 2: 24). Paul said that one could have all the faith of the universe but if he did not have love, he was nothing (1 Cor.13: 2). The Church offers a broader and more integral understanding on justification. The Protestant brethren remark that works serve no purpose. Accept Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord and you will be saved always. They quote from John. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life (Jn.6: 47). Also, every one who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom.10: 13). The Church is absolutely in agreement that faith is necessary for salvation. However, according to the biblical idea, the believing is a total act of man in all levels of his being and of his life. It is not only something from the heart or mind. It is something integral and this implies that it is more of the works, love, worship, knowledge, and reflection. The reason is that even the demons believe (James 2: 19). In the Council of Trent (session 6, chapter 4), the Church said that what saved us was our faith in God and His grace which is the divine life from Him. It is not just having faith alone; not just in mere believing. God does His part beforehand by giving us the grace first so that we can respond in faith. The Protestant brethren quote Eph.2: 8-9, saying for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not from ourselves. It is the gift of God not by works, so that none can boast . However, this same quote shows that there is something more than faith for it is by grace you have been saved . They also quote Galatians. Unfortunately, once again they have failed to see the whole context. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love (5: 6). Again, there is something more faith expressing itself through love . We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are (Acts 15: 11. See Romans 11: 6 and 6: 14). We see that the grace of God enters in the justification. In fact, it is not faith that saves me. It is Jesus Christ. Faith in itself is not enough. To support his idea that man is justified only by faith, Luther added the word alone in his German translation of Romans 3: 28. The truth is that the only place in the Bible where the words alone and faith appear together is in James 2: 24, which says that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. Luther justified the addition, boasting in saying, Tell me why the Pope followers are exaggerating because the word alone is not in the text of Paul. If the Papists exaggerate unnecessarily about the word, tell them that Doctor Martin Luther wants it to be so and that the Papists and donkeys are one and the same. I desire it to be like this, and my will suffice for it to be so. I know that the word alone does not exist in the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me The New Testament is going to remain with me, even if those donkey Papists are infuriated, they will not succeed in erasing the word. (Translation of the author.)

The Catholic Church teaches that human works, no matter how good they are, alone will not merit us the salvation. They are works separated from God. ( I am not saying that good people who do not know Jesus will or wont go to heaven. This depends on the mercy of God.) Only good works that are performed by a person in the state of grace, like a branch that receives its spiritual life from the Vine (Jn.15: 4-5) that is Jesus, will merit us the salvation. And this is made possible through the grace of God and through the merits of Jesus Christ. Faith alone? This is love for God: to obey his commands (1 Jn.5: 3). Summary of the Catholic Church teaching: 1) 2) 3) 4) Salvation is a gratuitous gift of God. Justification is by faith expressed in love. It is a grace from God. Good works are necessary for salvation. The grace of God motivates us to do good works. Good works are accompanied by grace, encouraged by it and the price reward is through the grace of God. 5) While the belief in baptizing only the adults comes from the belief that only faith saves, infant baptism makes evident that justification is through the grace of God since a child is incapable of doing anything to gain salvation. Love We mention what the Apostle Paul wrote, If I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing (1 Cor.13: 2). Even if one cries out, Lord, Lord, performs miracles and expels demons (Mt.7: 21-23), it is also not a proof of salvation. On the Final Judgement, Jesus will not ask us how much faith we have, but how much have we helped our neighbors who were hungry, thirsty etc. (Mt.25: 3146). Love and service towards the others are essential. Justice Jesus said, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt.5: 20). And, in verses 20 to 48, He showed what He meant to have justice. Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven (Mt.6: 1). When you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpet (6: 2). Do not (pray) like the hypocrites (6: 5). When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do (6: 16), etc.. Paul said, Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong (Col.3: 23-25). It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Cor.11: 15). Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous (1 Jn.3: 7). Works For the Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done (Mt.16: 27). Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done (Rev.22: 12). You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did (James 2: 22). The Protestant brethren claim that Paul opposed the faith to works.

However, this is not certain. Paul speaks of a particular problem of the Jewish Christians who wanted to impose upon the converts the circumcision and the rest of the rituals of the Law. It is the ceremonial law and not the moral law that is condemned. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What counts is a new creation (Gal/6: 15. See also 5: 6, Rom.3: 30 and 1 Cor.7: 19). In Christ Jesus, nothing is more important than work expressed through love whether the circumcision or the faithless uncircumcision is immaterial (Gal.5: 6). The moral law the commandmants is good. The Judaist and the Pharisees wanted to oblige the new Christians to fulfill the prescriptions of the Law of Moses, saying that they were necessary for salvation. It is not the circumcision that makes us member of the Covenant but the faith in Christ through the grace of God (Rom.3: 28 and Gal.2: 15-21). In the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.5: 20), Jesus did not oppose the law but elevated it. He perfected the law. He knew how to distinguish between the ritual laws and the law of the commandments. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law justice, mercy and faithfulness (Mt.23: 23). The works that God performs in us are extremely important. God will give to each person according to what he has done (Rom.2: 13). John agrees. He who does what is right is righteous (1 Jn.3: 7). Also, each person was judged according to what he had done (Rev.20: 13). Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward (Col.3: 23-24). It is important to understand that human works without the grace of God acting in us will merit nothing for us from Christ. Paul says, For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose (Phil.2: 13). Works are good and find a place in our salvation because it is God who works in us! Since you call on a Father who judges each mans work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear (1 Peter 1: 17). Catholics believe, following Paul, that each person will receive his reward according to what he has done. (1 Cor.3: 8). God is not unjust. He will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them (Heb.6: 10). (See 2 Peter 1: 10-11) There are still many texts to support this. In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (James 2: 17-24). Here we see that the idea of faith alone (without work) saves us is not only non-biblical, but also self-contradictory. Sola Fides the foundation of Protestant Reformation is not biblical! The rich young man asked Jesus, Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? (Mt.19: 16) And, let us take a closer look at Jesus response. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments (v.17). For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Cor.5: 10). (See 1 Thess.1: 3) Jesus warned the Jews to work for food that would not merely fill the stomach, but would bring them the eternal life. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life (Jn.6: 27). To work is to do something. Paul taught that the absence of good works would bring Christians to condemnation, even though they might be believers. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim.5: 8). James teaches that Abraham was justified by faith more than that of offering his son Isaac. Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2: 21). This is love for God: to obey the commands (1 Jn.5: 3). To obey is to do something.

The Protestant brethren assert that justification is external. We are completely evil but God covers us with the blood of His Son Jesus Christ. Therefore, externally we appear justified. God transmits His justification to us and pronounces us as just. However, Paul says that we are a new creation or, rather, we are justified from within and from without. We are truly just, not merely being pronounced to be just. (See the following chapter). Upon analyzing the Reformers belief on faith, it is impossible to ignore works. The fact is that a brother is saved when he performs a series of works (mental/spiritual), much more than just believing. First he RECOGNIZES that he is a sinner who is in need of forgiveness, HAS RECOURSE to Jesus Christ, SAYS a prayer, REPENTS and then ACCEPTS Jesus Christ as Savior. The Sacraments We have seen in the previous chapter that the Protestant brethren do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine. It is, therefore, not important to receive Communion. But, the words of Jesus show otherwise. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (Jn.6: 53-54). None of the Protestant flyers mentions these words. For Baptism: In chapter 13, we saw that this Sacrament forms part of the way with which God saves us. Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn.3: 5). Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk.16: 16). We must look and the WHOLE Bible instead of only the passages that are agreeable with us. Not only must we believe in Acts 16: 31 (Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved ), we must also not neglect Acts 2: 38, which says, Repent and be baptized, every one of you so that your sins may be forgiven. In general, the Protestant brethren do not quote the second verse as often as they do the first. Obedience If you love me, you will obey what I command (Jn.14: 15). He became a source of salvation for all who obey him (Heb.5: 9). We mentioned the rich young man who asked Jesus what he ought to do to obtain the eternal life. Jesus answered him, If you want to enter life, obey the commandments (Mt.19: 16-17). When the Master returns and finds the servant sinning instead of being obedient, He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers (Lk.12: 46). Even Suffering can be deemed necessary. (See chapter ****) Now if we are children, then we are heirs heirs of God and co-heirs of with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Rom.8: 17). We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14: 22). In conclusion, the Bible never says faith alone saves us. Instead, it says not faith alone (James 2: 24). Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mt.7: 21). Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God (Mt.5: 8). Which one is the column and the pillar of truth? Will it be faith? Will it be the Bible? Paul says (it) is the church of the living God (1 Tim.3: 15). In the words of the Apostle John, Do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous (1 Jn.3: 7). Remember this. Whoever sows sparingly will also reap generously, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously (2 Cor.9: 6). Jesus Christ condemned the Sola Fides teaching as being the tradition of men. Yes. We can say with the Church that we are saved by faith in the biblical sense of total and complete adherence of ourselves to the person of God, but not in the sense of Martin Luther. His is a requirement for a confidence that Christ has uprooted our debt and there is no need for us to do any work for our salvation.

What does the Early Church say?

Faith and Works Letter of Barnabas (108): In order to go to heaven, we have to make haste to do good works; (110): (good works) will give strength for the salvation of soul. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans we have to work. Clement of Rome (159): Second Letter to the Corinthians Jesus will come to judge each one according to his works. (See also 5: 5 of this same letter.) Hermas (60): The Shepherd Faith and works of virtues lead to eternal life. (IV, 2): That I have to perform works to live, as much as I have to obey the commandments as God said. Theophilus of Antioch (181): To Autolyclus, 1: 14. Clement of Alexandria (202): Stromateis or Miscellanies, 6:14:108:4. Origen (226-232): Commentaries on John, 19:6. Cyprian (252): Works and Almsgiving, 14. The rewards that God gives us always surpass in multitude than the good works we have performed (and these good works have values insofar as they are done through God Himself). The Bible indicates that, yes, we are rewarded, and we merit everything that God has promised us (Rom.2: 6-11 and Gal.6: 6-10). In the second century, the technical word merit was introduced as synonymous to the Greek word reward. The Fathers of the Church speak of the list of merit/reward in obtaining the final Salvation. Justin Martyr : Apology, 43. Tatian (170): Address to the Greeks, 7. Theophilus of Antioch (181): To Autolyclus, 1:14. Irenaeus (196): Adversus Haereses, 4:37:7. Hippolytus (215):Against the Greeks Cyprian (253): Works and Almsgiving, 14. Cyril of Jerusalem (350): Catechetical Lectures, 18:1.

15. ARE WE JUSTIFIED ONLY LEGALLY?

We have seen that Protestanism promotes the belief that we are justified by faith alone. Martin Luther used Rom.3: 20 to support this idea. He said that God had a salvation plan, but nobody was just enough to fulfill it (even though Jesus had told the young man to obey the commandments to obtain eternal life). Jesus had to make it do it for us as, as such, we are justified, but only in a legal sense. Man is incapable of doing any good because his nature is corrupt to the very core of his being. Jesus covers us with His blood. Seeing us covered with His Sons blood on the outside, God accepts us, even though we are evil in the inside. God only pronounces and we are justified. In the depth of our being, we are not truly justified. We remain as we are, but God considers us saved. It is like covering up an apple that appears well on the outside, but inside remains rotten. He did not understand the Apostle Luthers problem in quoting Rom.3: 20 to support his belief of being justified by faith alone is the problem of quoting the verse out of context from the rest of letter of Paul. Paul says that some are justified only by faith and not by works of the law. For this reason, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law (Rom.3: 20). Would Paul be contradicting himself when he said, God will give to each person according to what he has done (Rom.3: 20), and it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous (2: 13)? In Romans, Paul quotes the Old Testament when he says that no human being will be justified by the works of the law. When we go back to the text that Paul has quoted, we see that King David in this Psalm is saying that among the people of the nation, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile. There is no one who does good (Ps.14: 1-2) All have turned aside. They have together become corrupt, there is no one who does good, not even one (v.3). However, later David says that God is in the company of the righteous (Ps.14: 5). David was speaking in hyperbole. He was exaggerating 63. Luther was in error to think that Paul was taking literally King Davids words that there were no righteous people at all. Justified legally The Reformers quote Rom.4: 6 to affirm that God does not make the believers truly just. He only proclaims it, attributes it to the believer through the redemptive work of the Cross. God attributes justice without works. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor.5: 21). (See 3: 9) It is something legal, something forensic, like being in a courtroom of law where the judge pronounces the release of criminal from any punishment. Who will accuse the chosen ones of God? God is the one who justifies. God proclaims the person to be just and unpunished, even though the person remains corrupt within. What does the Catholic Church teach? In part we agree with the Protestant position that God remits the punishment that we so deserve, and attributes justice to us. However, something else is happening within us. God does not merely proclaim us to be just; He makes us truly just.

63

A type of exaggeration for the emphasis of the subject matter, as when Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin, plug it out. It is not to be taken literally. We know this because in the later part, the Psalm mentions that there are righteous people (v.5).

The whole purpose of Jesus coming is to destroy the works of the devil in the world and in our lives, and to give us the power of the Holy Spirit. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father (Gal.4: 6). We are sons and daughters not by jurisdiction (by the law), but truly and existentially. God fills us with His divine life. This is what Abba, Father means. We are truly His children. In His death, Christ showed us the power of God for our sanctification. We are terribly evil. But, God is more powerful than our wickedness, and His power is within us (the Holy Spirit), which transforms us into His children. Christ does not cover us only with His blood while we remain corrupt inside. He also transforms us from within. In Christ we become new creation (Gal.6: 15). We are not children by mere legal adoption. No. God adopts us and transforms us to become truly His children. Through the washing (baptism) you were sanctified (1 Cor.6: 11). In the washing we become stainless. Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless (Eph.5: 25-27). God, indeed, says that He will not justify the wicked. I will not acquit the guilty (Ex.23: 7). The Catholic Church recognizes that a person cannot be justified by doing his own works. Nevertheless, we are neither salves nor employees, and the salvation is not our salary. We are children of God though His grace. In being justified, we become truly His children. There is an interior and moral transformation in us. The word of God is powerful (Is.55: 11). If God says that we are His children, we are! Through the promises of God, you may participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1: 3-4). How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! Dear friends, now we are children of God (1 Jn.3: 1-2). Paul wrote, You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal.3: 26). God does not only cover us with His justice. Rather, through the New Covenant Gods law of justice also penetrates into the profound depth of our being. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts (Jer.31: 33). This new law of the New Covenant is from the Holy Spirit that vivifies us (2 Cor.3: 6). God wants us to be transformed and sanctified completely, not just on the exterior, because nothing impure or stained can enter into Heaven (Rev.21: 27). Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy. Without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb.12: 14). Psalm 24 says that he who has clean hands and a pure heart can ascend the hill of the Lord (vv.3-4). The hill prefigures heaven (Heb.12: 18 and 22; Rev.14: 1). Through the work of the Spirit is us, the soul really becomes transformed in the interior. The sins are washed away (Ps.51: 2), remitted (Is.43: 25) and banished (Jn.1: 29). They are not merely covered up. We are now members of the family of God (Eph.2: 19). Therefore, when we speak of the works that we perform, it is actually Christ that is working. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (Gal.2: 20), and the Spirit calling out, Abba, Father in me (Gal.4: 6). And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lords glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (2 Cor.3: 18). We become a new creation (Gal.6: 15).

Without the grace of God, the works of moral of the law do not save us. Grace brings us to salvation, but it also needs our cooperation, or at least not to place any obstacles in its operation. Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil.2: 12). Of course, none of the parents will ever say to the children you have to make payments to me to be my children. However, none of them will ever say as well You are going to inherit my all, regardless of what you do. For the Catholic Church, God is the Father of the New Covenant. He does not merely proclaim us to be justified by the blood of Christ; He also truly transforms us into His children through His Spirit. To those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor.1: 2)64 For the Protestants, God is a Judge and He only proclaims that we are justified. The Church teaches that God entrusts Jesus Christ to us so that through Christs death and resurrection He will justify us, bearing our sins upon His body (1 Peter 2: 24). However, in addition to justifying us, God also sanctifies us. And those he predestined, he also called. Those he called, he also justified. Those he justified, he also glorified (Rom.8: 30). (See Gal.3: 26-27). The faith that we have in Jesus makes us change to a new life that brings us to perform good works through the action of the Holy Spirit in us (Rom.8: 14-17). But, the very act of first believing in Christ is also a grace that comes from God. God always takes the initiative. Martin Luthers idea that we are justified only legally -- something external to the soul and through the merits of Christ implies a change in the disposition of God towards us. He no longer condemns us. Not so much have I changed, but the way that God is seeing me 65. This teaching in itself implies that an interior relationship with Jesus (the grace received) is not that important. Lutherdeclared that the Original Sin and the Concupiscence (the fallen nature due to the sin of disobedience to God) are one and the same thing. Given that baptism does not banish the concupiscence, it does not remit the sin Mancontinues being a sinner in the proper sense, and his works, originated in sin, are sins, even if they are works like adoring God or loving our neighbor If Luther had been logical, he would have had to accept that the same adherence to Christ through Faith falls in the same category Justification through sin 66. If, according to Luther, everything we do is sin, then our adoration to God, our belief in Him and our justification by God are all sins! In the parable of the unmerciful servant, the servants master took pity of him, canceled his debt and let him go (Mt.18: 27). But, his faith was not enough for him to remain saved. Then the master called the servant in. You wicked servant, he said, I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldnt you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you? In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he should pay back all he owed (Mt.18: 32-34). We are now going to look more closely and deeply the teaching on once saved, always saved in the following chapter.

64

Protestants distinguish between justification and sanctification. For them justification comes from faith in Christ, while the sanctification comes after through the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church does not make this distinction because it is not biblical. Upon baptism we are justified in Christ and are sanctified through the Holy Spirit. The grace of God penetrates our soul. It is the beginning of an process that lasts through our lives. Paul uses these two words indiscriminately in Acts 20: 32 and 26: 18. In 1 Cor.6: 11, to sanctify appears to come before to justify. 65 We are not saying that the Protestant brethren do not change their lives in accepting Jesus. Majority of them change their lives in such a way that Catholics ought to learn from them. The change that I am speaking about is that in the being of a person. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desire (2 Peter 1: 4). It also affects our existential relationship with God we become truly His children and not just the adopted ones. Because you are sons You are no longer a slave, but a son, and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir (Gal.4: 6-7). Or, as we have seen, now we are children of God (1 Jn.3: 2). 66 Estudios de la Teologia Del Protestantismo (The Studies on the Theology of Protestanism), Francisco Silva D., (Editorial Clavera, Mexico, D.F., 1988, p.23).

16. ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED?

Now if we are children, then we are heirs heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his suffering in order that we may also share in his glory (Rom.8: 17). Salvation, assured in the Prostestanism the certitude of salvation is one of the traits of the Protestant faith is changed to an uncertainty in Catholicism 67. Catholics find it difficult to respond to the question Are you saved? Not because they doubt about the salvation they have received from Jesus Christ, but because they think that a simple yes is not sufficient. If I say yes, it can mean that the salvation is now guaranteed in advance because I have accepted Jesus, and that is not the teaching of the Bible. However, if for that reason I say no, the Evangelical would think that I do not have a personal relationship with Jesus. Catholics believe that the grace of Jesus accepted through faith brings us salvation. Paul wrote, That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom.10: 9). And, he wrote to Catholics, Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preach to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain (1 Cor.15: 1-2). We notice here that Paul not only speaks about believing and being saved, he also mentions the necessity of perseverance. In the book Hasia la PLENITUD CRISTIANA (Until the Christian Plenitude) (1989), Dr. William Bright, writes, Since my personal encounter with Christ, my years of experience as consultant for students and lay people have convinced me that there are millions of good believers who have received Christ, but they have not yet found their salvation Perhaps they are still not sure? If they were to die now, would they know with certainty of the eternity that awaits them? 68. (You) are saved implies that my salvation is assured once I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. This is expressed through the phrase once saved, always saved. However, this contradicts the experience of the generations of the Christians, and it is definitely not the way Paul has understood the teaching on Salvation. Paul clearly considered himself saved through the grace of Christ, but he did not think that, therefore, he was freed from the danger of sinning. He knew that he could still fall into sin. Now that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it (Phil.3: 12-13). To the Philippians he also said, Work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil.2: 12). He admitted that he still had to press on. I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor.9: 27). And, in chapter 10 he said, If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you dont fall (v.12). What does Jesus say about once save, always saved for a person that has confessed to the Lord? He who stands firm till the end will be saved (Mt.24: 13). You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ. You have fallen away from grace (Gal.5: 4).

67 68

Why Protestant?, Freddy Durrlemann, TELL, Michigan, p.146. He is the founder of the Evangelical organization, Campus Crusade for Christ. In The Command of Mary for Catholics flyer (Fellowship Tract League #502), we read, In the moment when you confide totally in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, in that moment YOU ARE savedfor always. Later, at the end he says, If you have put your confidence in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, in this moment write to me so that I can pray for you. Name________, Address_________. Why is it that after having the assurance of salvation (to be saved for always), the person would need the prayers of the author of the flyer?

In Hebrews we see that once saved, always saved is not consistent with the biblical reality. It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (Heb.6: 4-6). Those born again who tasted the heavenly gift fell again! Consider, therefore, the kindness and sternness of God sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off (Rom.11: 22). If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left (Heb.10: 26). Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lamp-stand from its place Repent, therefore (Rev.2: 5 and 16). (See also 2 Cor.12: 21; 2 Tim.2: 11-13; James 5: 9 and Rev.3: 3 and 9) Salvation is not guaranteed because the Apostle John spoke of sins that led to death (1 Jn.5: 16) and not to the guaranteed heaven. Even though at times the Bible speaks about being saved as in the past tense -- We were saved (Rom.8: 24), it is speaking about a future event. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved (Mt.10: 22). It is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved (Atcs.15: 11). Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from Gods wrath through him (Rom.5: 9-10 and 13: 11). (See 1 Cor.3: 15 and 5: 5) Jesus warns us to pray so that we will not fall into temptation (Mt.26: 41 and Lk.11: 4). These words are meaningless for those who think that they are already saved and there is no way that they will fall. (See Lk.12: 37; 1 Cor.10: 12). Why will we be judged if we are already been saved? (Mt.25: 41)? EVEN THE CHOSEN ONES CAN FALL, says Jesus in Mt.24: 24. In the article Entre la gracia y la ley [Between the grace and the law] (in the Evangelical magazine called La Buena Semilla [The Good Seed], January, 1996), we find in p.10 a drawing of the stages of the personal salvation. There we see that in the third phase it claims saved, and in the sixth phase it speaks of the possibility of committing sin even to the point of the apostasy (the black circles). In other words, the article contradicts the Evangelical belief of once saved, always saved! When a Catholic is certain that the question is properly understood, he will then answer with confidence that, yes, he will go to heaven. God is merciful, but Catholics have to remain in battles to be faithful while they are still on earth. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called (1 Tim.6: 12). If indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Rom.8: 17). To think that one is already saved is to be presumptuous and arrogant. In summary, the Bible says that a person can be saved at one point but he, too, can fall into temptations later. Jesus spoke of this possibility in the parable of the sower. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away (Lk.8: 13). The fullness of the Gospel Salvation implies the daily dedication of my life to Jesus Christ. Now we want to delve deeper in our understanding of salvation. First of all, it is not merely a "deliverance from hell, but an involvement of a persons life in each and every level. Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way (2 Thess.3: 16). Therefore, salvation does not begin with our death and our entry into heaven. No. God wants to give life now. And on earth Peace to men to whom his favor rests (Lk.2: 14). Peace not only for the individuals but for the community as well a family in which all live united in Christ (Jn.15: 1-5).

One problem of some of the Christians is that they seem to have forgotten the communal aspect of man. For them it is only God and I. Salvation is extremely individualistic my Personal Savior and I. The Bible presents to us a God who treats us not just as individuals but as a nation. The Israelites said that God brought them out of Egypt and He did lead them and give them the land. The words are all in plural form. Their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them (Ex.2: 23-25, and 3: 8). Neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom.8: 39). The very prayer that Jesus taught us shows that our religion is communal. He speaks of Our Father and not My Father. The words of Jesus to Zacchaeus are a good example of the social aspect of salvation --Today salvation has come to this house (Lk.19: 9). Salvation did not come only to Zacchaeus. Rather, it came to the entire house. The gifts that the Spirit gives are for the good of the whole Church. They are not just for the individuals (1 Cor.14: 4). Paul said to the jailer, Believe (singular form) in Jesus Christ and you will be saved you and your household (Acts 16: 31). The reason is that we are all inter-related. Some Protestant publications assert that if you accept Jesusyou are saved. However, they never mention anything about getting incorporated into the body of Christ that is His Church. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2: 47). Many people will come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths. (Is.2: 3). (See 1 Cor.12: 12-13) Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God (1 Peter 2: 10). The book of Revelation speaks of the Church that is saved, together as a family and not only as mere individuals (5: 9-10 and 7: 9). The whole person and the entire setting God wants to free us in a way that is integral and total. Not only is He concerned for the soul of man, He cares also for his physical wellbeing (which is obvious from His numerous healing), and his relationship with other people. The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of the sight of the blind (Lk.4: 18). His concern for man goes far even in mans relation with the land. On the final judgment God will reveal to us that His desire was to help us towards our neighbor that are hungry, thirsty, sick, naked and imprisoned. The fact is God is interested in all the aspects of man. We read in the Old Testament that when the Lord your God brings you into the land he sworeto give youhouses filled with all kinds of good things you did not providethen when you eat and are satisfied (Deut.6: 10-11). (See Deut.7: 13-17 and 8: 9-10). We are not saying that they physical wellbeing and the prosperity come automatically when a person converts his life, as some Evangelicals tend to inseminate in their Gospel of prosperity teaching 69. God desires that we Christians extend help to our fellow neighbors. In addition, sufferings occupy a very important role in the doctrine of the Gospel. God wants us to show concern for one another e.g., the wellbeing of our neighbor. Moreover, He is asking us not only to help save souls but also to help improve the conditions of our world. God wants us to perform justice and services to strangers who are in need, the orphans and the widows. If you (take advantage of a widow or an orphan) and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry (Ex.22: 23). The early Christians understood the plan of God and they tried to live it. In like manner the many religious congregations also try to follow their example as their model of living. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the Apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need (Acts 4: 34-35).

69

Ken Hagen, K. Copeland and the Christian Fellowship followers are among the believers of this Word/Faith doctrine. Even the main Evangelical body rejects this doctrine.

God does not want the worship or the service if it does not loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? (Is.58: 6-7) Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land (Amos 8: 4-8). (See Joel 2: 21-27). And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6: 8). The Land God wants us to take care of all the creations that He has given us (Gen.1), to subdue it but never destroy it. While the Popes write about justice and peace, about labor unions and human rights, many Fundamentalist brethren simply ignore all these issues because they claim that they do not belong to this world. At times they do extend help to the others, but they do so only to try to convert them into their church. The doctrine of justification by faith and the teaching of once save, always saved show a confusion between being a Christian and being a good Christian. In order to be a good Christian, one must recognize Jesus Christ as the Lord of his life and in his actions; be faithful in prayer and in the living of Christian ethics. Nevertheless, a person becomes a Christian through baptism. If one fails to follow the requisites for being a good Christian, he remains (only) a Christian but not so much as a model disciple.