Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 64

Homework for Class 6 : The Jehovah's Witnesses & The Mormons

Articles to read

Who are the Jehovah's Witnesses?

The Divinity of Jesus

144,000

The Immortality & Existence of the Human Soul

Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy

The Reality of Hell

The Eternity of Hell

Resurrection of the Body

The Resurrection of Jesus

The Mosaic Law and Christianity

Who are the Mormons?

The Great and not-so-Great Apostasy

The truth about Baptism

Sunday worship

The Trinity

Discontinuity as a sign of a false religion

Examples of Discontinuities in the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness religions

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Paragraphs 232-267, 464-483


Who are the Jehovahs Witnesses?

Many Catholics have little or no idea what the Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe, and so
do not know where to begin regarding apologetics or evangelization. This article should not
be considered a complete history or explanation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but will certainly
equip the Catholic apologist with very important information and some guidelines about
where to begin with explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

Historical beliefs

The Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1872 as a response to what
he perceived as corruption in mainstream Christianity. There is no historical record of
Witnesses before this time; however, Witnesses believe that there were Jehovahs Witnesses
prior to this, maintaining that Abel and many ancient Israelites devoted to God were
Witnesses. They believe that Jesus was not God, but rather a great witness to God. They
believe that after His death early Christians became "Jesus Witnesses" and in that witness
they were also witnessing to Gods glory. At this time the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain there
was an apostasy and a number of Christians began to mistake Jesus for God. Once John, the
last disciple, died, they believe most Christians dismissed the Bible and adopted Greek
culture. This was, they maintain, the formation of the Catholic Church.

Obviously, all of this is completely unsubstantiated and novel, and is utterly opposed to the
plain facts of history. It is an example of the so-called Great Apostasy falsehood.

Where do they get these ideas?

Jehovahs Witness unique and often bizarre teaching steams from 3 main sources;
Protestantism, Adventism, and Arianism. Because Witness founder Charles Russell came
from a Protestant background, many of the Witness beliefs are much like that of the
Protestant beliefs formed during the Protestant Reformation. They reject the teaching
of purgatory, the Eucharist, confession, the intersession of the saints, the authority of
the pope and the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

Adventism is a religious movement that was mainly concerned with the Second
Coming. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovahs Witnesses all started as Adventist
religions in the 1800s. Witnesses borrowed many teachings from their fellow Adventist
religions. Early Mormons denied that the Holy Spirit is a person, and the Witnesses adopted
this same belief unchanged. Witnesses were also inspired by the belief that Saint Michael the
Archangel and Adam were the same person, but the Witnesses changed this teaching to be
that Michael was Jesus, the Second Adam. Two other doctrines inspired by Seventh Day
Adventist teachers are the belief man doesnt merely have a soul but rather he is a soul -
when he dies his soul disappears until the Second Coming and that Hell is not eternal; after
the Second Coming all evil will be annihilated.

The third influence on Witness doctrine is Arianism. Arianism is the first major heresy to
reject the divinity of Christ. Arius, a rebellious Catholic priest, began teaching that Jesus was
not God. He would attempt to hide this by praising Jesus with important titles and so forth,
but still denied His divinity. Arius teachings were proclaimed heresy at the Council of Nicea
in 325 A.D. Despite this, Witnesses still claim that the early Church taught that Jesus was not
God. This is a major error for Witnesses (stemming from a lack of understanding of doctrinal
proclamation) and if they were to acknowledge this it would force them to realize they are in
the wrong religion.

How to engage in apologetics with Jehovah's Witnesses

Because they deny that Jesus is God, Jehovah's Witnesses also deny the Trinity. Addressing
both of these issues is the best way to start.

Additionally, when speaking with Jehovah's Witnesses, it is important to note that the Bible
they use is a Bible which was translated in-house, called the New World Translation
(NWT). This Bible is translated poorly and inaccurately. Not only is the translation unfaithful
to the Hebrew and Greek, but additionally in places this Bible
actually contradicts Witness teachings! The five members of the translation committee were
in no way qualified to translate the bible. One member had studied non-Biblical Greek for a
short time and the other four had never studied biblical languages at all! Obviously, pointing
this out to the Witnesses is very important ensure that when they quote Scripture they are
quoting from a version which is not corrupted by their poor translation.

Another important note is that Witnesses will (deliberately or otherwise) attempt to confuse
beliefs by using the same words with different meanings. A particular example is their
statement that they believe Jesus is divine. When they used the word divine they are not
saying Jesus is God, rather they mean Jesus is very holy. It is important to immediately
explain that when orthodox Christians say Jesus is divine, we mean that He is God.
Additionally, Witnesses may use other words which are common to Catholic teaching, but
have very different meanings. It is always important to determine not only what the Catholic
Church teaches about a particular doctrine, but what the Jehovah's Witness means when he
uses particular words.
The Divinity of Jesus (CCC 441-451) Church Fathers

To be a true Christian one must believe in the Divinity of Christ; that He is true God and true
man. The Catechism states that, The title 'Son of God' signifies the unique and eternal
relationship of Jesus Christ to God His Father: He is the only Son of the Father; He is God
Himself. To be Christian, one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (CCC 454)

Many Catholics would think quite reasonably that only those who do not claim to be
Christians (atheists, Muslims, Mormons, New Agers and others) would deny the divinity of
Christ. But there are many people who maintain that they are Christians who also deny the
divinity of Christ they maintain that Jesus was created before all things, but that He was
still created! They say that Jesus was made, or had a period when He did not exist. This is
clearly wrong Jesus is God in all respects. This means that He not only existed before the
universe was made, but that He exists eternally and did not have a personal genesis. The
Catholic apologist must always be careful to ensure that both sides of the discussion are using
the same meaning of the word divine - and to correct the non-Catholic if necessary when
engaging in apologetics.

Evidence from the Scriptures

There are many verses in the New Testament which confirm the divinity of Christ. In John
20:28 Thomas falls to Jesus feet saying, my Lord and my God! and Jesus does not rebuke
or correct Him. In John 5:18 Jesus called God His Father, making himself equal with God.

In John 1:1 we are told that the Word [Jesus] was God. John 8:58-59 speaks of Jesus'
divinity both by talking about His eternal nature and also by using the name of God; I AM -
this should be compared with Exodus 3:14, 20:7, Leviticus 19:12 and 24:14-16. Would
Jesus (an observant Jew) make such a claim and use the very name of God so casually in light
of the teaching in these verses?

In John 10:30-33 Jesus says that He and the Father are one. John 10:38, 12:45 and 14:8-12 all
contain clear teaching that Jesus and the Father are intimately connected.

Colossians 2:9 contains a explicit teaching of Christ's divinity, as does Timothy 2:13.

There are other verses which point to the divinity of Christ, but these verses are the main ones
which are explicit and easiest to understand.

Evidence from the Church Fathers

The Church Fathers also proclaimed Jesus divinity. These examples are just a few of the
many quotes from the Church Fathers recognizing this invaluable truth. Ignatius of Antioch
stated in Letter to the Romans in A.D. 110, [T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after
the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is.
Origen said in the Fundamental Doctrines in A.D. 225, Although he was God, he took flesh;
and having been made man, he remained what he was: God Hippopolytus of Rome said,
For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering
the old man new.

The logical argument the trilemma

There is a simple logical argument that is used to demonstrate Jesus Divinity. This is known
as the trilemma - a term coined by C.S. Lewis, derived from the prefix tri- meaning
three and the word dilemma. It is called the trilemma because there are only three
possibilities concerning Christ; He is either God, a liar, or a madman.

Jesus claimed He was God and claimed to forgive sins, convincing people to give away
everything and follow Him, worship Him as God and so on. A person who claims such a
thing is either a cheat and a liar seeking to gain popularity and power, an insane man (on the
level of a man who claims he is a poached egg as Lewis puts it) or telling the truth.

Many religions and individuals see Jesus as only a great prophet, sage, philosopher and so
forth. But this cannot be the case - because the Bible is a reliable historical document we
known that Jesus claimed to be God. A man who does that cannot be just a man and also be a
good man.

Jesus is certainly not a lunatic or a liar; He taught with practical wisdom and authority. He
was able to read the human heart and show loving compassion that would be impossible for a
lunatic to fake.

He was also not a man seeking personal power He ended up nailed to a cross and did
nothing to avoid it! He talked about it extensively. There are also no records of Him asking
for money or for other practical comforts and luxuries. In fact, He preached about pain and
suffering! As the leader of a cult designed to make His life easier, He wasn't a success!

C.S. Lewis talks about this trilemma in his book Mere Christianity. He says, Now it seems
to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or
terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

Misinterpretations of Scripture which suggest that Jesus is an inferior God

Jehovah's Witnesses and others take from their misreadings of Scripture that Jesus was the
Son of God, but that means He is inferior to Him. Considering such verses as If you loved
me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I
(John 14:28) or When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be
subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one (I
Corinthians 15:28) it may seem like Jesus is inferior to God. It is, however, clear that Jesus
proclaimed Himself as God in Sacred Scripture in the many verses shown above.

Such teaching may seem to be contradictory, but we must understand that since Jesus is
fully God and fully man some verses refer to Jesus' divinity and others refer to
His humanity.
Another common error in the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses and others is the belief that
the fact Jesus is the first-born of Gods creation (Colossians 1:15) means that He was
created. He was the first thing created, but He was still created as is, therefore, not divine.

This demonstrates a similar misunderstanding of the term firstborn as is made by those who
deny the perpetual virginity of Mary - firstborn does not literally mean the first one born
but is better translated as supreme heir. Jesus possesses all the powers, abilities and divinity
of God the Father.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD

Finally, a number of people will maintain that because the proclamation of Christ's divinity
was made in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea it was at this Council that the doctrine
was invented. Of course, this is not true as is seen from the writings of the Church
Fathers and Scripture Christ was considered to be God long before this date. This is an
example of doctrinal proclamation in the face of heresy. In this case the heresy
was Arianism which, among other things, denied the divinity of Christ.
The 144,000

What's all this business about a number?

Many Catholics will not understand the significance of this number, and will be puzzled by it.
This number, which is found a number of times in the book of Revelation, has great
significance to the Jehovahs Witnesses, and forms a central part of their beliefs about the end
times. It is therefore important for Catholic apologists to know what the Jehovah's Witnesses
teach about this particular number and why they are wrong!

Just what do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

They believe that 144,000 people, known as the Anointed, are the only ones who will get
into Heaven. All other righteous people, known as the other sheep, will enjoy an earthly
paradise rather then Heaven. They teach that the Anointed are the Apostles and all those who
joined the Jehovah's Witnesses before the year 1935 A.D. Jehovahs Witnesses believe that all
the Old Testament saints and those who join the Witnesses after 1935 will not be included in
this 144,000 but will join the other sheep in the earthly paradise.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are the only religion that teaches this doctrine (although it is
certainly possible there are isolated members of other religions who believe it). Judge Joseph
Ruthreford, the successor to the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was supposedly given
this information in a revelation in 1935. Prior to this date there is no historical evidence for
this teaching.

Just why do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe this?

This is a very difficult question to answer why would anyone want to invent a religious
doctrine (remember; the fact that this doctrine is discontinuous with Christian history is a sign
it is a false, invented doctrine this is just one of the many examples of discontinuity in the
Jehovah's Witness religion) which is less appealing than the truth? A case could be made for
the appeal of universalism but not for making the afterlife seem less attractive! In point of
fact, pointing out to the Jehovah's Witnesses that the orthodox Christian view of the afterlife
is more appealing can be an effective apologetics tactic!

However, the Jehovah's Witnesses confirm this belief by misreading the book of Revelation.
The relevant passage is very important and so is quoted in full;

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four
winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree. Then I saw
another angel come up from the East, holding the seal of the living God. He cried out in a
loud voice to the four angels who were given power to damage the land and the sea, "Do not
damage the land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of the servants
of our God." I heard the number of those who had been marked with the seal, one hundred
and forty-four thousand marked from every tribe of the Israelites: twelve thousand were
marked from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand from the tribe of Reuben, twelve thousand
from the tribe of Gad, twelve thousand from the tribe of Asher, twelve thousand from the
tribe of Naphtali, twelve thousand from the tribe of Manasseh, twelve thousand from the tribe
of Simeon, twelve thousand from the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand from the tribe of
Issachar, twelve thousand from the tribe of Zebulun, twelve thousand from the tribe of
Joseph, and twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Benjamin. (Revelation 7:1-8)

There are many problems with taking these verses as confirmation of Ruthrefords
"revelation." There are drastic inconsistencies in the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of
these passages - they pick and chose which words are to be taken literally and which are to be
interpreted as symbolic. For example, in the verse which reads one hundred and forty-four
thousand marked from every tribe of the Israelites the number 144,000 is interpreted
literally while tribe and Israelites are interpreted figuratively. This is grossly inconsistent
if only the 144,000 were the only people destined for Heaven then very few Jehovah's
Witnesses would be among them, as very few Jehovah's Witnesses are of the twelve tribes of
Israel.

If this passage is read as it should be that is, in context it is clear that the 144,000 are not
the sole inhabitants of Heaven. In fact, the 144,000 are never even mentioned as being in
Heaven they are on earth! Revelation 7:9 reads After this I had a vision of a great
multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood
before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in
their hands (emphasis added). This large crowd is obviously not the 144,000 as 144,000 is
a number which can be counted, and this multitude cannot be counted is in front of the
throne of God in Heaven. This clearly shows that there will be more than 144,000 people in
Heaven, and that they will be from every nation, race, people and tongue (not just from the
twelve tribes of Israel).

Scriptures which refute the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching

There are many passages in the New Testament which support the belief that all Christians
and Old Testament prophets have a hope of Heaven not merely an earthly paradise. Luke
13:28 reads And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out. Also
in Matthew 5:11-12 Jesus says, Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your
reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Additionally, in Philippians 3:20, Paul writes But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it
we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (emphasis added for all these verses).
The Immortality & Existence of the Human Soul

What various groups believe

Jehovah's Witnesses (among others) believe in the annihilation of the soul at the death of the
person. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that persons do not have souls, but
rather are souls; when a human dies his soul is destroyed. It is not until the end of time that
the soul is created once again from nothing for Heaven or earthly paradise. This means that
the person himself does not go to Heaven, rather that a copy of the person goes to Heaven.
This teaching can be a very effective apologetics tool towards Jehovah's Witnesses what is
the point of doing anything if you are not going to end up being rewarded but rather just a
copy of you?

Many of those who hold to the teaching of the mortality of the human soul (or even the denial
of the existence of the soul at all) are atheists.

The Catholic Church does not hold this teaching of the mortality of the soul. She teaches that
human persons (and, indeed, all rational creatures such as angels) have spiritual souls that are
immortal, and after the death of a human body the soul, or life principle, lives on and cannot
be destroyed.

Philosophical principles

It is in Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica that the great teaching concerning the
nature of souls is found, and it is somewhat complex. However, in brief, the teaching runs as
follows.

Firstly, it can be observed that there are certain abilities of a human person that cannot be
explained solely by material substances or processes in the body. Abilities such as reasoning,
reflecting, or willing. The possession of free will is only possible if there is something
beyond the merely physical within a human being otherwise we would simply be organic
computers which just process information and always come to the same conclusions. But
this is not the case human being demonstrate free will. These abilities are accounted for by
the non-material, or spiritual principle of the body, or the soul.

Secondly, a soul has no parts. The body has parts because it physically exists in space, and
can therefore be divided into parts. Souls do not exist in space, do not have parts and
therefore cannot be broken down into parts. They are what is called simple. This does not
mean they are easy to understand, but rather they cannot be reduced to component parts or
broken down. If something cannot be broken apart, it cannot decay.

Souls, by their nature, will always exist. God has the power to absolutely annihilate the souls
He created (that means that He could destroy them utterly so that they ceased to exist without
ever decaying or breaking apart). However, since it is contrary to the nature of the soul and
Him, He chooses not to.

God's love
Many people have a difficulty accepting the notion that it is, in fact, more merciful for God
to allow people to go to Hell rather than simply destroying them and giving them oblivion.
This is because of a failure to understand the fact that God loves us and wants us to love Him
in return. Our love is only meaningful because it is a free choice (free will) and a free choice
is only possible when there are two (or more) options each with consequences. By having a
Hell which is both real and eternal (as a counterpart to the Heaven which is both real and
eternal) and allowing humans to go there (rather than annihilating them) God respects the
creatures He has created.

Hell respects the dignity and choices of the human person if God simply destroyed those
souls who defied Him, He would degrade the choices of those who co-operated with Him.

God's justice something which many people have a difficulty with also demands
an eternal and a real Hell. Without an eternal soul, an eternal Hell is meaningless.

Scriptural support and challenges

The main group who use Scripture to support their belief in the mortality (or non-existence)
of the human soul as opposed to simply asserting the fact without evidence as atheists do
are the Jehovah's Witnesses. They use a number of Scripture passages in an attempt to prove
their point.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 reads For the living know that they are to die, but the dead no longer
know anything. There is no further recompense for them, because all memory of them is lost.
For them, love and hatred and rivalry have long since perished. They will never again have
part in anything that is done under the sun. This passage, although it may seem to say that
the person ceases to exist after death, is really describing the way the deceased are no longer
a part of the world and not a part of the lives of those who are still living in the normal way.
When these verses are read carefully it is clear that nowhere does it say that the dead no
longer exist it uses many metaphors which suggest they aren't part of the living world
(which is obvious!), but never once says that they don't exist! The many verses which support
the communion of saints show that the dead are, in fact, alive to us but in a different way.

In scripture God reveals to us that we have souls and they are not destroyed at the time of our
death. Genesis 1:27 says, God created man in His image; in the divine image He created
him; male and female He created them. God does not have a body by nature, so we cannot
be created in His image in that sense. God is pure spirit, and in order to reflect the image of
God, we must have a spiritual element, or soul. God's spirit is eternal can we really be said
to be created in the image and likeness of God if our spirit is not immortal too?

There is also a particular example given by the Jehovah's Witnesses which relies on their
faulty translation of the Bible, the New World Translation. The verse is Matthew
25:46 (Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels
. . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life)
The Jehovah's Witnesses' translation reads And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off,
but the righteous ones into everlasting life (emphasis added). This is just one example how
this flawed translation changes the text to suit the Witnesses teachings. This verse (and the
others which speak of the eternity of Hell) such as II Thessalonians 1:9 (They shall suffer
the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from
the glory of his might) clearly show that the soul is immortal. If the soul is not immortal
then exactly what is experiencing all this eternal suffering in the eternal Hell? Suffering isn't
merely the fact that a place is unpleasant something capable of suffering has to be in that
unpleasant place for suffering to actually take place. If the suffering is eternal, then the thing
capable of suffering must be immortal.
Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy

Impossible to reconcile?

Many non-Christians fail to understand that God can be both infinitely loving and infinitely
just and because of this reject the entirety of Christian teaching. The teaching of a God who
is infinitely just and infinitely merciful can not only be reconciled in Christian thought, but
precisely because of who Christ is and what He did there is no other option for the
character of God but infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

The Scriptures are full of examples of God's boundless love. In the beginning God made man
in his own image and likeness and created a world for man to live in and God declared His
creation good. (Genesis 1:1-31). As I John 4:16 tells us God is love, and he who abides in
love abides in God, and God abides in him.

But we are also shown that God is capable of sending people to a very real and eternal
Hell for disobeying him. How do we reconcile these clear teachings (which are supported in
Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers, and addressed in separate articles) with
God's boundless love?

The issue lies with the concept of God's justice. It may seem as though the idea of mercy and
justice are totally at odds mercy is the forgiving of sins and the removal of penalties, while
justice is the enforcement of penalties for sins. Humans often use the word unjust or
unfair to refer to the idea of someone being cruel or nasty, but logic shows that it is not
just for someone to be merciful.

The infinite penalty for sin

Man, who was made to know, love and serve God, made the choice not to love through
disobedience. This was the moment that sin entered the human race this is original sin. Man
lost the gifts of God, his intellect was darkened and his will weakened. Man now had the
inclination to sin described by St. Paul, I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good,
evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man:
but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating
me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me
from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-25).

Archbishop Fulton Sheen describes the infinite penalty for sin when he wrote, Sin is
measured by the one sinned against. Man sinned against God. God is Infinite. Therefore,
mans sin is infinite. Man who is finite owes an infinite debt. In a sense, our loving Father
God must now provide a means of redemption to make eternal salvation possible. Who will
atone for the debt?

In order for God to be both just and merciful there must be some way whereby the penalty
can be paid for sin, and yet whereby God saved mankind from having to pay it. The answer is
the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The infinite payment of the crucifixion

For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son: that whosoever believes in
Him may not perish, but may have everlasting life (John 3:16) Because Jesus Christ is
God and is sinless His sacrifice on the cross is perfect, and earns an infinite source of merit
for us. God demands an infinite payment for the sin, but because of His mercy He bears this
penalty Himself. Following on from the typology of sacrifice Christians can share in this
infinite merit through the sacraments (established by Jesus Christ as conduits of grace) and
most especially the Eucharist.

It is this central truth that the apologist needs to explain to the non-Christian God desires
humanity to be with Him, yet humanity has chosen to be so far from Him that there is no way
that humanity can bridge that gap. God, in His infinite mercy, pays the price His infinite
justice demands Himself. It is the crucifixion of Christ one of the strangest and most
counterintuitive religious events that brings these two things together, and this is central to
the understanding of the Christian mystery.

The means of redemption, salvation and sanctification that the Church offers consist in
having faith in Jesus Christ and all that He did and taught. Our faith in Christ is realized as
we die in Christ through the sacrament of baptism and are born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God
and heirs of God's kingdom. We live a covenantal relationship with Christ by becoming a
visible member of the Church and continue to receive the sacraments,
especially confession and the Eucharist, until the race is won.
The Reality of Hell (CCC 1033-1037) Church Fathers

A sobering and unpopular doctrine

Most Christians believe in Hell, but there are a number of people (both Christian and not)
who do not believe in this doctrine. These people are best described as universalists, named
after the heretical doctrine of the same name. This heresy teaches that all men will be saved
and that there is no such thing as Hell. Naturally, this teaching is at odds with the truth and
the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Why do people believe in universalism?

Many people feel that if God loves us so unconditionally, why would anyone go to Hell? But
it is because of that love for that He allows Hell to exist. God wants His people to choose him
freely as He chooses to love us freely. The Catechism states, We cannot be united with God
unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him,
against our neighbor or against ourselves: He who does not love remains in death. Anyone
who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in
him. (I John 3:14-15) Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to
meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren (Matthew 25:31-
46). To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means
remaining separated from Him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-
exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called Hell. (CCC 1033)

The failure to believe in Hell shows a lack of understanding of God's justice which is
infinite, like His mercy. God does not choose to send people to Hell, but rather allows people
to choose to go there. Persons who have rejected God and all He did for humanity (dying on
the cross for our sins being the most obvious thing!) will be unable to face God at the last
judgment and will choose to exile themselves from God's presence this is Hell.

A new face on an old heresy

There is a movement both inside and outside the Church called neo-universalism; the belief is
that all men, without exception, will go to Heaven. This idea takes any kind of warning about
Hell and turns it into empty, hypothetical statements; threats that God will not carry out.

The Church condemned universalism as heretical, so the neo-universalists make sure to


specify that they do not assert that there is no-one in Hell, but rather that they confidently
hope that all humans are saved from eternal damnation, through Gods merciful love, even if
it is a repentance at the inaccessible moment of their death. This teaching is blatantly against
Scripture, which warns that Hell is not empty and many will not be saved. In some cases,
neo-universalism can perhaps be better understood as a denial of the eternity of Hell, rather
than a flat denial of its existence per se.

Support for the existence of Hell


Although the church doesnt teach that any specific person is in Hell, Hell is real and not
something to be taken lightly. In the New Testament, when speaking of salvation, Jesus
makes it very clear that not everyone will be saved. Luke 13:23-24 says that a certain man
said to Him[Jesus]: Lord, are they few that are saved? But He said to them: Strive to enter by
the narrow gate: for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter and shall not be able. Another
example is Matthew 7:22-23 where Jesus says, Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in
Heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord,
Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many
miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
you that work iniquity.

Jesus speaks often of Hell and He speaks as if it is a real place and a real danger. The Church
Fathers also make it very clear in several of their writings that they consider Hell to be both
real and eternal. The Catholic apologist should always be ready to defend both of these truths
about Hell.
The Eternity of Hell (CCC 1033-1037) Church Fathers

Jehovahs Witnesses and some other universalists teach that at the end of time all evil will be
annihilated, including all souls in Hell, devils, and Hell itself. The Catholic Church does not
teach this, rather she teaches that Hell is eternal. Beliefs contrary to this teaching go against
reason, Sacred Scripture, and the teachings of the Church Fathers.

All spiritual beings such as human souls or angelic beings are, by nature, immortal. If God
annihilated all persons in Hell and devils He would be contradicting the natures of those
creatures. Since the Lord is a just God, He will not contradict our nature, much like He allows
us to have free will because it is in our nature to have it.

Some people argue that it is unjust for people to suffer eternally for what is considered a
finite sin. The truth, however, is when we sin, we are offending God - since God is an infinite
being, when we sin against Him, our actions call for an infinite punishment. Because of Gods
infinite mercy, He sent His Son, Jesus, to pay for the debt we owe to God, but if we do not
accept Jesus and Gods mercy, we will be subject to Gods justice, and infinite punishment in
Hell.

In order to defend the eternal nature of Hell, it is first necessary to show that Hell is real,
that rational souls are immortal and the true nature of God's justice.

Support in Sacred Scripture

There are many verses in Sacred Scripture that support this teaching. In Mark 9:43 when
speaking about Hell it says, Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.
Even in the Jehovahs Witnesses translation, the New World Translation, the verse reads that
the fires of Gehenna cannot be put out. In Matthew 18:8 Hell is referred to as the
everlasting fire. In Revelation 20:9-10 it says, And there came down fire from God out of
heaven and devoured them: and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire
and brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night
for ever and ever. This verse is the same in the New World Translation, so it is a good proof-
text for the eternity of Hell to use against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Additional verses are Isaiah 33:11 and 33:14 which speak of everlasting flames. Matthew
25:41 and 25:46 use the word eternal to refer to fire and punishment. Luke 3:16-
17 speaks of an unquenchable fire and II Thessalonians 1:6-9 talks about eternal ruin.

Clever tricks with Greek

A number of neo-universalists will say that the Greek word used for eternal in many of
these passage is aion or aionios (or a derivative thereof) which (they say) literally means
a long period of time rather than everlasting. They use this as an argument to suggest that
Hell is not eternal, but is rather simply a long time. But a correct reading of Scripture does
not show this.
Many verses do not use the word aeon - they use a different word which cannot mean
anything except eternity. In addition the word is used in Matthew 26:46 twice once to refer
to Heaven and once to refer to Hell. Either both Heaven and Hell are eternal, or neither of
them are! The neo-universalist cannot have it both ways!
Resurrection of the Body (CCC 988-1019) Church Fathers

A doctrine not often spoken about

Despite its place in the earliest and most common creeds of the Church, the resurrection of
the body is not often addressed by many non-Catholics. It seems almost as if the ultimate
goal is to get to Heaven and what happens at the end times when the souls shall be reunited
with their resurrected bodies is rarely considered.

Very few Christians actively deny the resurrection of the body although certain quasi-
Christian sects such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses either deny it or have such
strange notions about it that they are merely using the same words to mean a totally different
thing but the Catholic apologist should always know the faith and understand what the
Church teaches.

Additionally, the resurrection of the body is connected with the resurrection of Jesus
Christ and without the resurrection of the body the physical resurrection of Christ loses much
of its meaning.

A doctrine explicitly taught

In Mark 12:18-27 the Sadducees test Jesus, and He rebukes them. He rebukes them
specifically for their lack of faith in the resurrection of the body a teaching which the Bible
specifically records that they did not believe. This passage is included in the Gospels because
of the importance of the teaching of the physical resurrection.

In II Maccabees 7:9 and 7:14 the Jews are shown as believing in a resurrection of the body.
Saint Paul teaches this doctrine in I Corinthians 15:12-14 and in 15:35-53 Paul teaches us
the nature of the resurrected body.

The resurrected body is described as imperishable - it will be a physical body which has no
flaws and which does not know death or injury or illness. It is a glorified body which Paul
speaks of a clear sign and teaching that God considers the physical world to be good.

Of course, all this talk of glorified bodies only truly applies to the righteous. In John 5:25-
29 Jesus speaks of the end times and makes it clear that both the good and the evil will be
resurrected. But the evil will not experience the resurrection of life but rather the
resurrection of judgment.

The innately physical nature of the human species

The true Christian view of the end times and our ultimate eternal destiny (for either the
righteous or unrighteous) is physical. Human beings were created in Genesis 1:26-27 as
physical creatures Genesis 2:7 describes this process in more detail. Man is made of the
dust of the ground (i.e. he is physical) and is animated by the breath of God (i.e.
is spiritual). Physicality is good and humanity should never be understood as a purely
spiritual being who is trapped or limited by its physical nature. To be a purely spiritual
creature is unnatural for us we are sustained in Heaven by God's power, awaiting the
resurrection of the body.

For those who say that the physical world is good, or who deny the reality of the physical
world, the teaching of the resurrection of the body is of key importance.
The Resurrection of Jesus (CCC 638-358)

Virtually all Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus it should be all Christians, but
there are some people who self-identify as Christians who do not actually believe in the
physical resurrection of Christ. Obviously, such people are not actually Christians the
physical resurrection of Christ is of paramount importance in Christianity. As Saint Paul says,
if Christ was not resurrected our faith is in vain (I Corinthians 15:14) if Christ did not
actually die and was not physically raised from the dead, how can our sins be forgiven by the
death of Christ?

To many non-Christians, the teaching of the resurrection is one of the hardest to accept
especially as various popular and sensationalist books, movies and other products of the
secular media have advanced the notion that Jesus was never resurrected. The idea that
someone could come back from the dead seems to be a strange and utterly implausible belief.

However, it is not this article is designed to show that the resurrection of Jesus is a
historically verifiable fact and should be believed in; despite the fact it seems difficult to
believe!

This article should not be considered the definitive work on the subject it is, by necessity,
merely an overview of what is a very complex subject. However, it should equip the Catholic
apologist with enough knowledge to answer most objections especially objections which
are made by someone genuinely interested in learning the truth, rather than someone who has
an ax to grind.

A note on fact and evidence

Many people today (this will most likely include the audience of the Catholic apologist) do
not have a real notion of what proving something means, nor what the term impossible
means. When people say That's impossible! they generally mean It is unlikely and I
wouldn't like to believe it. This reason for disbelief (the cost of believing) is discussed in
the articles refuting atheism.

It is impossible to prove anything all that can be done is offer sufficient evidence to
convince someone that that is the most likely conclusion. Although scientists speak of proof
what they mean is evidence which cannot be easily ignored and which means that the most
likely scenario is a particular one.

The fictional detective Sherlock Holmes often said When you have eliminated
the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This is an
excellent maxim when discussing the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus is
certainly possible anything is possible but it is very unlikely and seems highly improbable
to most people. In order to prove (remember, this means simply offer evidence which is
enough to convince people) that Jesus was resurrected, it is necessary to show that all other
possibilities are impossible (or, at least, exceptionally unlikely).

Historical reliability of the Gospels


It may seem unusual to suggest that the beginning of this argument rests on the historical
reliability of the Gospels surely if the Gospels are historically accurate Jesus must have
resurrected because they say so very clearly! But this is not the sort of historical accuracy that
is being discussed supernatural events referenced in the Gospels could (although they
are not) merely be symbolic of something else. Atheists will never agree at first that the
Bible could be accurate when it comes to supernatural events such as the resurrection.

However, most educated atheists will agree that the history of the Bible points to it being
broadly historically accurate. Archeology and secular history has also shown that the Bible is
broadly historically accurate.

In brief, it is known that the Gospels are historically accurate because they were written
within living memory of the events they describe and because a tradition of oral storytelling
existed within the first century Jewish culture. If the Gospels were inaccurate someone would
have pointed this out but there is no record of this happening. The current versions of the
Gospels are when compared to the earliest copies which archeology has discovered
extremely accurate; this shows that they have been reliably preserved.

The point of this is that when the Gospels say that something happened to Jesus which is
normal and common (such as Him being crucified, which happened to many Jews of the
period) the Gospels are telling the truth. These events can then be used to prove that Jesus
rose from the dead.

What to say to those who reject the Bible as a reliable source

A number of people will say that the Bible cannot be used because it says that Jesus is
resurrected and that is therefore inadmissible evidence. This sounds very good on the
surface but it's not. What the person is actually saying is I won't allow any evidence which
says that Jesus was resurrected. So, that means that the Christian has to prove that Jesus was
resurrected without ever being allowed to use a source which says that! This is totally unfair,
and simply ridiculous.

Jesus' death

In order for Jesus to be resurrected He must first have been killed. This is a key point, and
one which many Christian apologists overlook. A man who was never dead being seen
afterwards is not a miracle! It is this point that many non-Christians attack they claim that
Jesus did not die on the cross and that He merely swooned. As evidence for this they offer the
fact that, according to the Gospels, Pilate was surprised that Jesus had succumbed to
crucifixion so soon (Mark 15:44), the fact Jesus' legs were not broken (John 19:31-33, 36)
(and therefore He would not have suffocated) and the fact that Jesus is given a drink shortly
before He dies (Matthew 27:34, John 19:29-30) (the theory is that this was an anesthetic
which would have made Him appear to have died).

There is a very important point to note about all of these passages none of them is proof that
Jesus was alive on the cross. In fact, none of them say that at all! It is entirely possible that
Jesus would have died that quickly bear in mind He had been severely flogged prior to this
and beaten and brutalized by both the Romans and the Jews (Matthew
26:67, 27:26, 27:30, Mark 14:65, 15:15, 15:19, Luke 22:63, 23:11, John 18:22, 19:1, 19:3).
Historical evidence shows that Roman floggings were especially brutal and used whips
containing metal shards and fragments of bone. Extreme blood loss was common, often
leading to a condition known as hypovolemic shock where the blood level falls dangerously
and sometimes fatally low.

The entirety of the argument that Jesus did not die on the cross hinges not only on the fact
that it would be possible to escape the cross alive, but that the person would be in a fit state
afterwards. When Jesus appears afterwards He seems to be fit, hale and hearty. He is not in
the sorry state that one would expect from someone who has been crucified would be. Not
only would He have lost massive amounts of blood but He would have shattered wrists and
ankles (making Him unable to walk) and a massive wound to His chest (John 19:34). This
wound was made to ensure that Jesus was dead so even if He had been alive when that
wound was made, that would have killed Him for certain.

A number of people claim that the Roman soldiers who were responsible for crucifixion were
not medical experts and could not tell if someone were dead or merely unconscious. But this
is ludicrous the Roman legions were expert soldiers. They killed people for a living. While
it may be difficult to determine if someone in a coma is alive or dead it is not hard to make
sure that someone is dead, which is what they did. The Roman soldiers were employed to
ensure that Jesus Christ was dead when He was taken down from the cross which is just
what they did with a spear.

Did the Christians believe Jesus was physically resurrected?

If Jesus Christ was resurrected as Christians claim, then the tomb in which He was buried
would have to be empty on Easter Sunday morning. A number of people who deny the
resurrection maintain that Jesus' body was thrown into a common grave the stories of the
empty tomb are simply legends. They say that it was unlikely that Jesus was buried in a tomb
as most crucified criminals weren't.

But most does not mean all - these people have to prove that Jesus was not buried. The
Gospels say that He was (Matthew 27:59-60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:52-53, John 19:38-42).
The evidence for this lies with Joseph of Aramathea.

Joseph was the man who gave his tomb to Jesus. He was a member of the Sanhedrin Council,
but did not vote to condemn Jesus (Luke 23:50-53). There are two important facts to point
out here. Firstly, there are no competing stories of what happened to Jesus' body. There are
simply no other stories which circulate if this were simply made up, would there not likely
be other stories all purporting to be true?

Secondly, if a story were made up, would the chief protagonist in this story be a member of a
prominent council who could be checked up on? Remember, the Gospels were written within
living memory of the events described it would be a foolish person who would make up
something so easily checked!
The fact that Jesus was buried does not prove He was resurrected the tomb would have to
be empty for that. The resurrection accounts of the Gospels clearly say this was the case but
can they be relied upon? Some people claim that Jesus's resurrection was a simply spiritual
one, and not physical. His body remained in the tomb.

This is easily refuted by the fact that the early Christian Church (which was primarily made
up of Jewish converts) taught the resurrection. In I Corinthians 15:3-7 we have the example
of what is probably the earliest statement about the resurrection of Christ (remember, many of
the letters of Paul were written before the Gospels). Additionally, this statement is not
something that Paul himself has formulated it looks and sounds like a creed which he has
received from an earlier source. In I Corinthians 15:3 he says that he received it. The
language used is unlike Paul's language elsewhere, and uses phrases such as the Twelve
which are uncommon is his work. This passage is most likely an early creed which was
passed onto Paul during his instruction in Damascus and elsewhere.

This means that the early Christians were attesting to the resurrection of Jesus and they
would have been doing so with a very Jewish mindset. The Jewish concept of resurrection
was physical as is shown in II Maccabees 7:1-23 (the verse which most clearly shows this
is 7:11). The Christians would not be preaching a resurrection unless it was
a physical resurrection.

Were they just lying?

It is clear that the Christians then believed that Jesus rose from the dead the same as
Christians believe today! But were they right? There are three possibilities they either did
not know but believed He rose from the dead, or they knew He did not and were lying about
it, or they knew He did and were telling the truth. This places the early Christians in a
position which modern Christians are not in we cannot know via empirical evidence that
Jesus was resurrected. But they could.

Christians such as Peter, James and John knew Jesus Christ very well they had traveled
with Him for three years. They ate with Him and were His closest friends. Given the fact that
He was certainly killed on Good Friday, when they saw Him on Easter Sunday and
afterwards (as attested to in the I Corinthians 15:3-7 creed and elsewhere) they would be able
to tell if He was the same person, or not! And if they did not see Him, they would know this
too!

While many people are willing to die for something which they believe is true (for example,
Muslim suicide bombers are happy to kill themselves because they think they will get eternal
life) no-one is prepared to die for something which they know to be false. A modern Christian
might be willing to die rather than renounce Jesus' resurrection, but he does not know in the
same way as the apostles did if if is true. He has not seen the living Jesus in the flesh after His
death.

But the apostles did they were in a unique position. History tells us that they and many
other of the early Christians went to their deaths willingly rather than recant their testimony
that Jesus was raised from the dead. Why would these people do this? Why would they die a
horrible death in order to declare something that they knew was a lie? They had nothing to
gain from it there was no benefit to being a Christian in the first century when all the
apostles were martyred. Christians were brutally persecuted by the pagans.

One or two of them might be completely insane and be willing to die for something they
knew was a lie, or might have come to believe it, but not all of them. The fact that there is no
record of any apostle recanting his faith is the strongest evidence that Jesus Christ was
resurrected from the dead. These people were in a position to know.

Just scratching the surface

This article only covers some of the evidence for the resurrection of Christ more evidence
can be found in excellent books such as Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ (Harper Collins /
Zondervan). Although not he is a Catholic and it is therefore not a reliable source of doctrine,
this book of Strobel's is well-researched and presents many of the arguments for Christ's
resurrection in a very clear manner.
The Mosaic Law and Christianity (CCC 574-594, 1961-1986)

A number of non-Christians (and some Christians and quasi-Christians) ask why the
Christians follow some of the Mosaic Laws described in the Old Testament (such as the
prohibitions against homosexuality) but not others (such as the prohibition against shellfish or
the drinking of blood). A number of Christians maintain that worship should be conducted on
Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) rather than Sunday this is refuted in a separate article.

Sometimes, this question is asked in a neutral manner but most often this is directed at
Christians because of what the questioner sees as bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals.
The explicit prohibition against homosexual acts is found in the book of Leviticus, and also
found in that book are a number of other laws including ones which forbid the eating of
pork and shellfish. This has caused many non-Christians to think that Christians who are
anti-gay but who eat pork and shellfish (for example) are hypocrites.

There are a number of ways to approach this question, and the tactic used will depend very
much on the individual who is asking. If the main focus of the question is homosexuality,
then it may be better to offer the reasons why homosexual acts are disordered. However, if
the question is more directed to why Christians do not follow the old Jewish laws (also
known as the Mosaic Laws, after Moses the lawgiver), then the following may be of help.

There are essentially two answers, one of which relies on the authority of the Church and one
of which draws directly on Sacred Scripture. Both of them are valid, and understanding both
may help the Catholic apologist.

Authority of the Church

As is made clear in a separate article, the Church has authority. Catholics accept the Church's
infallible teaching and its role in interpreting scripture. The simple answer to the question of
why Catholics eat shellfish and not kosher-slaughtered food is, rather starkly, the Church
says so, and she says so because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit passed this knowledge to
the Apostles. Regardless of whether or not this knowledge is explicit in the New Testament,
the fact that certain aspects of the Mosaic law no longer apply is taught by the Church. She
was given this knowledge by Jesus when she was just the apostles, and this has been passed
down through Apostolic Succession over the past 2000 years.

It is unlikely that this argument will convince those who do not accept the teaching authority
of the Church, so it will be necessary to first explain the fact that the Church has authority.

Evidence from Holy Scripture

The Bible consists of two sections an Old Testament and a New Testament. While the
Old Testament is not rendered null and void or irrelevant by the New Testament, where the
New Testament of Jesus Christ expands upon or replaces information contained in the Old
Testament, it is the New Testament that the Christian must follow.
For example, in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:28) Jesus Christ
uses the phase You have heard it said that . . . but I say to you . . . many times. He proceeds
to give a number of examples of how the new law is harder and a higher standard than the
old. For example, He replaces the Mosaic Law of eye for an eye with turn the other
cheek. It is clear from this that Jesus is entirely prepared to replace and expand upon the
Mosaic Law.

In Mark 7:18-23 it is made clear that the defilement associated with eating certain foods
under the Mosaic dietary laws is removed by Jesus verse 19 explicitly says that all foods
are declared clean. There are further examples of Scripture passages which support a removal
of the Levitican dietary laws.

In Acts 10:10-16 Saint Peter has a vision, wherein the Lord tells him to eat of "unclean"
animals.

But these verses only speak of which animals are clean it does not speak of an allowance of
methods of killing animals other than the kosher method, nor does it remove all other
Levitican laws (such as those concerning diseases and female menstruation). The relevant
passage of Scripture for this is the Council of Jerusalem (considered by many to be the first
ecumenical council of the Catholic Church) in Acts 15:1-35. Here it is made clear that
Gentile converts to the Catholic Church are not to be bound by circumcision and the Mosaic
Law (Acts 15:5 shows this is what the council was about) but rather simply to avoid
pollutions of idols, unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

Saint Paul reminds the churches he writes to of this decision - Ephesians 2:9 makes it clear
"works" (of the law) cannot save. As discussed elsewhere this does not advance the doctrine
of sola fides but rather states that the "works of the law" cannot save. The whole of the third
chapter of Galatians explores this theme. Saint Paul says that we are now justified by faith
rather than legalistic observance of the law. The refutation of the doctrine of sola fides makes
it clear that this does not mean that good works are of no avail, but rather that the works of
the Mosaic Law are of no avail. If keeping the Mosaic Law cannot save someone, then not
keeping it cannot damn someone. Galatians 5:2-6 states that those who seek to be justified by
the law must keep the whole law and that they are severed from Christ. This makes it very
clear that Christians are not only not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that they should
not wish to be bound by it!

Why, then, do Christians condemn certain practices which are in the Mosaic Law if the
Mosaic Law no longer applies? There are two reasons firstly, because the reasons for
condemning some practices (such as homosexuality) are not removed by the fulfillment of
the Mosaic Law. These behaviors are morally unacceptable in all respects, and damage
individuals, society and their relationships with God. Additionally, however, the Scriptures
condemn these actions themselves for example I Corinthians chapter 5 makes it clear that
sexual immorality is unacceptable. Galatians 5:19-21 provides a clear list of sins and
immoralities which lead to damnation.
In short, Catholics (and all Christians, who took their moral precepts from the Catholic
Church in the main) do not follow the Mosaic Law at all. What we do is follow a moral code
which is similar and which was given to us by Jesus Christ during the Incarnation. Just as the
people living in the modern United States used to follow British Law, and now follow
American Law there are similarities between the two legal systems which are based on the
natural law and fundamental moral truths of the universe, but they are not the same legal
systems.

Black pudding and rare steaks?

Some people will point to Acts 15:20 and say that Christians should eat no strangled animals
and no blood. There is no formal prohibition in the Catholic Church concerning these foods,
and so is the Church guilty of transgressing Sacred Scripture?

No. Firstly, it must be remembered that sola scriptura is a false doctrine and that the Church
has authority. The pronouncement made at this Council was not a doctrine, but rather
a discipline of the Church. Why was such a discipline made? The clue is in the mention of
pollution of idols - strangled foods and blood were often part of pagan ceremonies.
Additionally, the Jewish converts to Christianity had lived for years and years without eating
these foods and so found them particularly repulsive. The Council of Jerusalem was seeking
to integrate two disparate halves of the Christian world the Gentiles and the Jews. By
establishing the discipline that foods which the Jewish converts found repulsive should not be
eaten within these mixed communities the Church was ensuring that there would be no cause
of division.

Once these concerns no longer existed (that is, when the proportion of Jewish converts
dropped, or in areas where there were very few Jews to begin with and most converts were
Gentiles such as the Greek churches) the Church lifted these restrictions. I Corinthians
10 Saint Paul speaks about how it is now permissible to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to
idols, warning the Corinthians to only be concerned about causing scandal, rather than any
sin or wrongdoing which might be attached to eating the food itself. This clearly shows that
the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to avoid certain foods was not doctrinal, but rather a
discipline. Other verses of the Scriptures, however, show that all foods were made clean
(specifically Mark 7:19).

Blood transfusions

The Jehovah's Witnesses (a quasi-Christian sect) maintain that blood transfusions are not
permitted. This is a simply ludicrous notion not supported by any reading of Scripture. There
is not a single verse which speaks specifically of blood transfusions, and the teaching cannot
be extrapolated from existing moral laws. The verses speak of the eating of blood
from animals not the transfusion of human blood to save a life. Even Orthodox Jews today
permit the use of blood transfusions, even though they scrupulously avoid the eating of blood.
There is simply no precedent for the rejection of blood transfusions by the Jehovah's
Witnesses even if this novel teaching could be extrapolated from the Mosaic Laws
concerning the eating of blood, it is clear that these laws have now been revoked.
Who are the Mormons?

A long history

The history of the Mormon religion is part of the history of the United States of America, as
the religion was founded during the period of great western expansion of the States. In
particular, the history of the State of Utah is connected with the history of the Mormons. This
article cannot hope to give a full or complete history of the Mormon religion, but it will give
an overview and some starting points for the Catholic apologist.

But they are such nice people!

Many people are concerned by the fact that Mormonism is presented as a false religion, even
a cult especially given the fact that Mormons, in the main, appear to be such nice people.
They are invariably polite, law-abiding citizens. They seem to have a great devotion to the
family and have a conservative mindset.

Much of this is true Mormons are generally very kind, polite, decent people with a
wonderful sense of community. But this does not change the fact that while they are nice
people what they believe is wrong and spiritually dangerous. In addition, a number of their
teachings (especially about marriage) are not only spiritually dangerous but are also
detrimental to family life.

Foundational history

Joseph Smith Jr. founded the Mormon Church, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, in New York, in 1830. He claimed to be given revelations from God that all
Christianity was corrupt, and he needed to restore the Church that Jesus had established.
Smith claimed to be an apostle and a prophet, and said that he was ordered to write these
Divine revelations into Sacred Scripture. Mormons now regard the three books written by
Smith as sacred scripture; they are The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and The
Pearl of Great Price.

Sources of Mormon teaching

Although Joseph Smith claimed to have received a vision telling him where to find golden
plates which contained The Book of Mormon written in Reformed Egyptian (a language
which no reputable linguist has ever suggested is a real language) it is clear from
the inconsistencies in his stories and the similarities of his teaching to other religions that
Mormonism is an invented and false religion which draws on multiple sources.

Joseph Smith was a protestant and much of the protestant beliefs were used in Mormon
teaching. Although Mormons are not Protestants, they similarly reject teachings such as
the Eucharist, the pope and the Marian doctrines. They also believe in a plurality of gods,
deny the divinity of Christ and naturally do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

Adventism is also an influence on Mormon beliefs. In the 1800s the Adventist movement was
mostly concerned with trying to figure out when the world was going to end. Joseph Smith
also got caught up in the hype, and predicted the world would end in 1890. (The fact that it
did not should be enough to show that Mormonism is a false religion!) But the Mormons are
not too focused on the Second Coming, but rather picked up a freethinking mentality in
religious matters that was common with Adventist.

Freemasonry was another influence on the Mormon Church. Smith had a Masonic
background and the many similarities between the rituals of the Mormons and Masons are too
close to be coincidental. Another source of Mormon beliefs is from writings by colonial
ministers Cotton Mather, William Penn, and Roger Williams, who believed that the Native
Americans might be remnants of the lost tribes of Israel. Smith taught that these tribes came
over to the Americas before Christ and formed two nations of Jews, the Nephites and the
Lamanites. These nations are described in The Book of Mormon but there has been no
archaeological evidence of these nations ever existing, so it is likely that this belief may be be
set aside in the future.

Another source of Mormon doctrine is continuing revelation. It is believed that the successor
of Smith is an inspired prophet that receives revelations and uses them as doctrine. One of the
key features of this continuing revelation is that doctrines and beliefs can and are abandoned
as they prove inconvenient. This discontinuity of teaching remains a key feature of
Mormonism, and shows that it is a false religion.

Good places to begin with apologetics

The best place to begin with showing that the Mormon religion is false and invented is
with the discontinuities in its teachings, documents and prophecies all of which show that
Mormonism is a false religion. Addressing contradictions in The Book of Mormon and
elsewhere should be enough to show that Mormonism was simply made up!

However, the Mormons reject a number of key Christian beliefs the Trinity, the divinity of
Christ, the belief in a single God as well as rejecting the same religious beliefs as the
Protestants the Eucharist, Marian doctrines, Papal authority and so forth.

It is very important for a Catholic apologist to realize that Mormons are not Christians they
deny the divinity of Christ. They often claim to be Christian, but they absolutely are not.

This article is only the beginning

This article does not seek to provide a detailed description of all the Mormon beliefs; many of
the more strange and unusual (the belief that God has a body, that men can become Gods, that
God the Father had physical sex with Mary to conceive Christ) are not mentioned here
because of simple lack of space. However, the information given should be more than enough
to defend Catholic teaching and show that Mormonism is simply a fraud.
The Great and not-so-Great Apostasy

A very common position for non-Catholics to use is apostasy of the Church argument. This
essentially states that the Catholic Church either became totally corrupt at some stage or that
the Catholic Church is the product of pagan Rome attempting to infiltrate the Christian
religion. In some versions of this story, a small remnant of faithful Christians remains hidden,
while in others there were no faithful Christians until some alleged revelation many years in
the future.

While there are many different variants on this central theme of apostasy (including ones
advanced by a number of Protestant denominations and the Jehovah's Witnesses), there are
two major examples which Catholic apologists must be prepared to deal with. The first is
the Mormon understanding of The Great Apostasy and the second is the Evangelical
Fundamentalist Trail of Blood. As it is essential to understand what something is before it
is refuted, both positions are presented here. The defense against both arguments is very
similar, and so will be covered together.

The Great Apostasy

According to the Mormon religion, the Catholic Church became completely corrupted shortly
after the death of last apostle (around 100 AD) and began teaching false doctrines. This
apostasy was complete by 200 AD and there was no presence of Christ's true Church on the
earth for over 1600 years until it was restored by Joseph Smith in 1829.

The Trail of Blood

The theory of the trail of blood is similar, but is also bound up with lurid scandals concerning
the Catholic Church's role in persecuting real Christians. It is claimed that the true Church
did not vanish from the earth, but rather that genuine Christians remained hidden. These
people then reappeared as the various Protestant groups of the 16th century reformation. The
term the trail of blood refers to the various groups (all of whom have been allegedly
persecuted by the Catholic Church for daring to teach true Christianity) which have been
the true Christians throughout history.

Devoid of the trail of blood elements, this notion is also the foundation of the Babylon
religion theory of Catholicism as a pagan religion, which can be refuted in much the same
way as well as refuting it as a slander against the Church.

Please note that not all (or even a majority) of Fundamentalist believe these false notions.
The Catholic apologist should determine what an individual Protestant believes before
launching into any apologetics!

Scripture which refutes the notion that the Catholic Church became corrupt

Although Scripture does not speak about the time when the great apostasy allegedly took
place, there are many verses which speak to the permanence of the Church. These Scriptures
show that the Church Jesus founded was permanent. These verses (and other evidences) also
show that the Church Jesus founded was built upon Peter and had sacraments. Before
showing that the Church that Jesus founded could not have fallen into apostasy, it will be
necessary to show that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded.

In Matthew 7:24-27 we learn of the wise man and foolish man who each built a house. The
wise man is shown to have built his house explicitly on a rock. As we learn from the correct
interpretation of Matthew 16:18 Jesus also built His house (the Church) on a rock Peter.
Jesus explicitly states that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; a clear sign
of permanence.

The prophecies of the Messiah also speak to the permanence of His reign and kingdom and
hence the permanence of His Church. Isaiah 9:6-7, Daniel 2:44 and 7:14. Luke 1:32-33 tells
us there will be no end to Christ's kingdom. Matthew 28:19-20 teaches that Jesus will be with
us for all time and the Church is Jesus Christ's body and the means by which He has chosen
to allow us access to Him.

In Matthew 18:15-18 the Christians are told to take disputes which cannot be settled to the
Church. If the Church were to fall into disaster and apostasy, why would Jesus do this? The
Church Jesus established is clearly being held up as a strong example of solidity not
something that might collapse and disappear. In I Timothy 3:16 we read that the Church is the
pillar and foundation of the truth these are very strong, definite terms for something that
could vanish into apostasy!

Mormons and others will sometimes cite verses such as Matthew 7:15, Acts 20:29, II
Thessalonians 2:3 and II Peter 2:1 as examples of this Great Apostasy. But all these verses
state is that there will be a mass apostasy at the end of time, not that there will be a total
apostasy before this period. It is certainly true that there have been heresies and apostasies in
the Church (most especially the Protestant Reformation!) but there has never been, nor does
Scripture teach, an apostasy on the level suggested by either the Great Apostasy theory or the
Trail of Blood. For such a theory to be true, Jesus Christ must have made a number of false
promises something which cannot be true.

The Early Church Fathers

This refutation relies on the study of the very early Fathers the ones who lived around the
time of this alleged apostasy. When refuting the Mormons, this is prior to the year 200 AD.
When refuting the Fundamentalists, this is around the year 325 AD. Some of these Fathers
are Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Irenaeus. Most of these men knew the
apostles personally, and their writings are well-documented and can easily be obtained. There
are a number of points to note from their work.

Firstly, they consistently teach Catholic doctrines this is the main reason a Catholic
apologist should use the Church Fathers! It is clear that these Fathers who were personally
taught by the apostles in many cases were not teaching either Mormon or Fundamentalist
doctrines. This means that either they were part of the great apostasy which led to the
Catholic Church, or that the theory is false.
There is no mention in any of their writings of a great apostasy or any sort of battle for the
faith on such a scale. Certainly, there are mentions of individual heretics and certain heretical
movements, but there is no mention of any sort of total apostasy. Even if it is assumed that
the Church Fathers were part of the apostasy it is likely that they would have mentioned it
even if just to condemn the true Christians! But there is no sign in the writings of the
Church Fathers of this heresy, nor are there any other writings which support the notion.
History is totally silent. History mentions the other great splits and schisms within the Church
(such as the split between the Orthodox in 1054 and the Protestant Reformation which began
in 1517) but about this alleged schism there is total silence.

Although the weight of historical silence is not enough to prove that something did happen
(absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) this is a very serious problem for those who
wish to advance this notion. There is absolutely no evidence for a mass apostasy in any
historical records.

Also, is it reasonable to assume that the earliest Fathers those who were taught personally
by the apostles would teach heresies? Fundamentalist claim that the apostasy does not occur
until roughly 325 AD and there is a complete continuity of teaching between the pre-
Nicaean Fathers and the post-Nicaean Fathers. This strongly speaks against the
Fundamentalist position.

Biblical Canon

As discussed elsewhere, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture
around the year 400 AD. This is after the period of the so-called apostasy how could an
apostate Church produce the correct canon of the Bible? And why would they do so? Would
it not be better to simply destroy the Bible, or to produce a false one, rather than produce the
one which every Christian denomination agrees to be divinely inspired? As the Catholic
Church had sole control over the Bible for over 1000 years, why did she not destroy it when
she had the chance if she was apostate?

Discontinuity of teaching among the Trail of Blood religions

As discussed elsewhere, discontinuity is the sign of a false religion. Because discontinuity of


teaching is only a sign of a false religion when the teachings of a single religion are compared
over time, if the various religious groups in the trail of blood can be shown to have a
discontinuity of teaching, it means one of two things. Firstly, that the alleged true
Christianity is not at all and is, in fact, a false religion, or, secondly, that the trail of blood
is not a single unified religion, but rather a series of unconnected heresies springing from
Christianity.

The actual list of trail of blood religions is not formalized (because it is made up) but there
are a few regular members. The trail ends with modern Fundamentalists, and usually contains
the the Albigensians and the Cathars.

It is a simple fact that virtually all of these groups taught doctrines which are both radically
different to those of the Catholic Church and also modern Fundamentalists! While many of
these groups were opposed by the Catholic Church (although not to the extent that
various slanders against the Church would make out there were no mass executions and
burnings at the stake carried out by the Church, although many of these groups were also
politically seditious and treasonous and so were hunted by various Kings and Princes) they
were opposed because they taught heresies, not because they taught some sort of authentic
Christianity the Church was trying to suppress.

History records what these people believed it is a simple matter to show that the so-called
trail of blood is nothing more than a trail of heresies which aren't connected to each other.
These groups did not turn into each other; they arose and were destroyed. And then, a few
years later, another group arose and was destroyed. The only connection these groups have is
that they are all heretical but they don't even teach the same heresies!

Not only is the historical record very clear on who these groups were and what they believed,
the historical record is completely silent on even the notion of the trail of blood before the
1800s. The idea that the Protestant denominations (any of them) arose from a hidden line of
Christians unconnected to the Catholic Church was alien to every single Protestant
including all the Reformers! - before about 1800 AD. That is nearly 300 years of not knowing
where you came from if that is true! Or it could be considered 300 years of honesty then
hidden by a falsehood and a lie.

If the Protestant denominations did not come from a long line of true Christians (as no such
line exists that shows any connection to teach other) where did they come from? The answer
is simple they came from the same source as all the heretical sects they claim to have come
from. They came from the Catholic Church - the Church that Jesus Christ founded personally
and which is the one true Church. They are the result of heretical men trying to impose their
own will and opinions on the teaching of Jesus Christ.

In point of fact, the story of the great apostasy is true but the apostasy does not occur at a
single point in time. It has occurred throughout Christian history as groups have split off from
the Church. The greatest example of this apostasy is the Protestant Reformation.

Burden of Proof

When a non-Catholic brings up some notion about the great apostasy or other similar theory
it is very important as an apologist to remember that the burden of proof rests with the
prosecution to merely assert that This is the case and all the evidence has been covered up
by the Catholics! does not prove a thing. This theory is such a serious and wild accusation
that it demands extraordinary proof.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no proof for it extraordinary or
otherwise. The Catholic apologist should be prepared to demand that proof and, when none is
forthcoming, present the facts.
The Truth about Baptism (CCC 1213-1284)

Baptism is the first Sacraments of Initiation; it is the way we enter the Church. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole
Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which
gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as
sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made
sharers in her mission: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.
(CCC 1213)

On the face of it, Baptism seems like a very simple thing and indeed it is. But this does not
prevent a wealth of confusion about this seemingly-simple sacrament. This article will
address the key teachings of the Church and various objections which are made to them.

Original Sin (CCC 389, 396-409, 416-419)

Original sin is the teaching that because of the sin of Adam and Eve all humans are born
with natural life rather than the supernatural life of sanctifying grace. As spiritual beings God
made us with the Beatific Vision as our destiny. We cannot reach this destiny without
supernatural life, unless we are reborn into new life in the Spirit with sanctifying grace.

There are few Christians who deny original sin (when attempting to prove original sin to
atheists and non-Christians consult the article on refuting atheism) but there are some. The
Bible is very clear on the nature of original sin. In Genesis 2:16-17 God warns of the
consequence of eating of the Tree of Knowledge (He is speaking of the death of the spiritual,
supernatural life within Man) and in Genesis 3:11-19 we see God's punishment and the
consequences of that original sin. The ground (that is, the whole earth) is cursed as a result
of this sin the Fall is not merely confined to Adam and Eve. Romans 5:12-19 explicitly
teaches original sin as does I Corinthians 15:21-23.

Regenerative & Necessary Baptism (CCC 1263-1264) Church Fathers

The sacrament of Baptism is the way to wash clean the stain of original and actual sin, and be
born again. In John 3:5 Jesus says, Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(A number of Protestant Christians claim that this verse does not refer to water Baptism at all,
and that there are two separate births here. A man is born of the Holy Ghost by making a
single declaration of faith in Jesus Christ. The birth of water allegedly refers to the
amniotic fluid of natural birth and not Baptism at all. Needless to say, this is a very novel
notion and no historical precedent is found for this prior to the start of the evangelical
movement. Nowhere else in Scripture is natural birth referred to as being born of water -
this is a desperate interpretation designed to deny the simple truth of Baptism.)

Many Protestant Christians believe Baptism is only a symbolic ritual that shows the public
the persons conversion and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and savior. Baptism was never
known as a symbol in the early Church. Scripture makes it clear that Baptism is not
symbolic. Mark 16:16 shows the necessity of Baptism, and in John 3:22 the apostles begin to
baptize.

Acts 2:37-38, 22:16, I Corinthians 6:11, Romans 6:4, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:21 and Hebrews
10:22 all show that Baptism is far more than a merely symbolic gesture it has very real,
sacramental effects on the person being baptized.

Infant Baptism (CCC 1253-1255) Church Fathers

Some Protestants (both those who who believe in the regenerative properties of Baptism and
those who do not) say that only those who are capable of displaying faith in Jesus should be
baptized. Thus, they do not believe that children should be baptized. They maintain that the
Bible does not teach this. This is a erroneous argument for two reasons; firstly, sola
scriptura is a false doctrine. Secondly, the Bible does teach this!

Scripture supports this teaching of Infant Baptism. In Acts 2:37-39 Saint Peter speaks about
Baptism and then says For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far
off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. Elsewhere in Scripture it says that all need to
be saved or brought to life I Corinthians 15:21-22 - naturally, "all" includes children.

In Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:15 we find evidence that Jesus encouraged the bringing of
children to Him would He say this if they were incapable of being incorporated into the
Church? Colossians 2:11-12 says that Baptism has replaced circumcision circumcision was
something which was carried out to children as infants.

There are also many examples of entire families (which very probably include children)
being baptized; Acts 16:15, 16:33 and I Corinthians 1:16.

Finally, many Protestants object to the notion that a person can be saved without faith of his
own they maintain that a person cannot be saved by the faith of another. Unfortunately for
them, the Bible does not teach this and in fact teaches precisely the opposite. In Joshua
24:15 the choice is made to serve the Lord for an entire household. Matthew 8:5-13, 15-21-
28, Luke 7:1 and Acts 16:31 all contain examples of the faith of others saving people
precisely as happens in Baptism!

In Nomine . . . (CCC 1240) Church Fathers

Some non-Catholics choose to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus rather than in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 the clear command to
baptize in the Gospels!) The logic behind this clear defiance of Scripture is that there is only
one name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that is Jesus. This is an example
of the Modalist heresy, and should be refuted by the use of Trinitarian apologetics.

Baptism by pouring or immersion? (CCC 1239)

The Catholic Church practices Baptism by either pouring or by immersion both are valid
and licit methods of bestowing the sacrament. Some non-Catholics, however, claim that the
word baptizo (which is the word used in the Gospels) can only refer to immersion and
therefore the Catholic practice of pouring or sprinkling is not valid. This is not the case.

Firstly, just because it does not say explicitly in the Bible that Baptism can be conferred by
pouring that does not mean it cannot be sola scriptura is not true.

Secondly, the word baptizo is used elsewhere to refer to practices other than immersion the
ritual washing of hands before eating is described using the word baptizo in Luke
11:38 and Mark 7:3-4. Additionally, in Acts 1:4-5 Jesus tells His disciples that they will be
baptized [baptizo] with the Holy Spirit. But when this Baptism occurs in Acts 2:17-
18, 2:33 the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out on them they are not immersed in Him.
In Acts 11:15-17 these events are described again now the Holy Spirit is said to fall onto
them.

In addition to this Scriptural evidence the writings of the Church Fathers especially
catechisms such as the Didache show that pouring was practiced in the early Church. Early
Christian mosaics in places such as Rome also show Baptism by pouring as well as
immersion.

Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (CCC 1258-1260)

One objection raised by many non-Catholics and Catholics who do not understand the
teachings of the Church is that it is not just for God to demand Baptism for salvation; what of
people who through no fault of their own are never baptized? Are these people many of
them children doomed to Hell for all eternity simply because of a lack of education?
Because of this perceived weakness in the teaching of Baptism these individuals choose to
reject the whole teaching.

Apologetics for these cases is very simple the relevant passages of the catechism make it
very clear what the teaching is. Once this teaching is explained most people will find it
acceptable that God normally but not exclusively requires Baptism. As the catechism states,
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His
sacraments (CCC 1257)

The fate of unbaptized infants (CCC 1261)

This is a specific case of Baptism by desire and / or Baptism by blood (those children who
are aborted can be regarded as being slaughtered in direct opposition to Christianity a
number of theologians have taught that abortion is far more than a simple socio-economic
practice of human selfishness and is, in fact, a form of Satanic worship with regular sacrifices
of children). However, it is of particular relevance because of the emotive nature of the
subject, and because of the teaching of limbo.

The Church makes it very clear that those children who die without Baptism have the hope of
salvation those who are part of a Christian family who simply never got around to baptizing
the child, but who wanted to, are assured of the fruits of the sacrament without the sacrament
being bestowed.
Some non-Catholics (and even Catholics) will maintain that the doctrine of limbo has been
changed and that this shows that the Church is changeable. This is not the case limbo
has never been a formal doctrine of the Church. It is a theological hypothesis which some
theologians have held and some have not. The most popular view is that limbo is not true
unbaptized babies go to Heaven. But this is not official teaching, nor does this represent a
change in teaching. The Church stating that she does not know, and that the prevailing view
has changed is not a change in doctrine there was never a doctrine to change in the first
place!

Baptism for the dead in the Mormon religion

The Mormon religion teaches and practices a Baptism for the dead Mormon believers are
baptized in place of non-Mormons who have died, in the belief that the dead will be able to
enjoy the rewards of living as a faithful Mormon. Each Mormon is baptized for many dead
people this is a sort of Baptism by proxy.

The hope is that the dead will be saved after death, despite having not lived a good life. But
the Bible explicitly contradict this Hebrews 9:27 states that "it is appointed for men to die
once, and after that comes judgment. Clearly, this shows that there are no second chances.
In fact, even the Book of Mormon itself says that there are no second chances! Alma 34:35-36
reads For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death,
behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his.
Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power
of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked. Additionally, in II Nephi
9:15 we read And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first
death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the
judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be
judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his
eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and
they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into
everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose
flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end. These are just two examples of
the many contradictions in the Mormon religion, and show that it is not a true religion at all.

Why do Mormons believe this? Naturally, they simply made this doctrine up but they
attempt to justify and support it by a faulty reading of I Corinthians 15:29 which mentions a
Baptism for the dead. Mormons assert that Saint Paul speaks positively of the Baptism for the
dead as something Christians should and did do. This is not the case.

The Greek phrase most often translated as for does not necessarily mean in place of - and
certainly does not automatically suggest the highly novel practice that the Mormons
undertake (which is mentioned nowhere in the rest of Scripture or anywhere else).

This verse is isolated and there is no other counterpart to it so it is difficult to precisely


determine what it means. This verse speaks of something that they do not we - so it is
by no means certain that this was a Christian practice. In addition, the fact there is absolutely
no other support for it (not to mention the fact the Mormons themselves teach directly and
explicitly against it in their own so-called scriptures) proves very conclusively this is
nothing more than a false and invented doctrine.
Sunday Worship (CCC 2168-2195) Church Fathers

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that Sunday is to be considered the
primary day of worship for Christians and that it replaces the observance of the Sabbath
(which occurs immediately before it) (CCC 2174-2176). Sunday is identified as the first
day or the Lord's day in both Scripture and elsewhere. Sometimes, it is called the eighth
day, referring to the fact that Sunday could be considered the eighth day of the previous
week rather than the first day of this one. When this term is used it additionally refers to the
notion that Jesus' resurrection is the culmination of the first week of Creation in Genesis 1.

Objectors to Sunday Worship

A number of groups most especially the Seventh Day Adventists claim that the act of
worshiping on a Sunday is un-Biblical and rejects the commandment of God to Remember
the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the
seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work. (Exodus
20:8-10). Some people claim that Sunday worship only dates from around the Council of
Nicea (325 AD) and that this was part of the paganization of Christianity started by
Constantine. This slander is nothing more than a falsehood and a lie, inspired by hatred for
Catholicism and a mistaken belief that Sun-worship inspired Sunday worship, when in fact
the truth is that Jesus was raised from the dead on a Sunday.

Importance of the Authority of the Church

There is nothing but truth to the charge that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship
from Saturday to Sunday but that does not mean that the rest of the charges are true! It
is not true that this change happened around 325 AD it happened around 33 AD when the
Church was founded, and Scriptural evidence (provided below) supports this. In addition, the
historical record of the Church Fathers (provided in the accompanying article) proves that
Sunday worship is apostolic in origin.

The main objection to the historical truth that the day of worship was changed stems from a
rejection of the Church's authority it will be necessary for the apologist to show that the
Church does have authority.

The Mosaic Law does not apply to gentile Christians

A number of people may say that even if worship is to be undertaken on Sunday a general
avoidance of work is mandated for Saturday, according to the Mosaic Law. The truth of the
matter is that the Church which has authority to legislate has shifted what elements of the
Mosaic observance of the Sabbath to Sunday. This is an example of the changes involving the
Mosaic law as it applies to Christianity.

Scriptural support for Sunday worship

There are many verses which point to the fact that Sunday worship was the norm from the
earliest days of the Church and that, in fact, it was practiced by the apostles themselves.
In Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, 9 and John 20:1, 19 it is made very clear that
Jesus' resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. Because of this Sunday is the most
important day in the life of the Church every Sunday is a mini Easter so to speak.

In Acts 20:7 the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on
Sunday, the "first day of the week" is shown. In I Corinthians 16:2 Saint Paul instructs the
Corinthians to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week", which is
Sunday.

The theological reasoning behind the change from Saturday to Sunday is mentioned
in Colossians 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled
in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath."

In II Thessalonians 2:15 Christians are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or
written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath
day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Hebrews 4:8-9 is very interesting regarding the day of rest; if Joshua had given rest, God
would not later speak of "another day" - which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the
first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our
Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday. Hebrews 7:12 speaks of the fact that, when there is
a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new priest
and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Finally, in Revelation 1:10 Saint John specifically points out that he witnesses the
heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ. Why
would this be made clear to him in his vision if it were not the new day for appropriate
worship?
The Trinity (CCC 232-267) Church Fathers

Most mainstream Christians accept the teaching of the Trinity that there is only one God,
but that within the single Godhead there are three distinct Persons. Each Person is distinct
from the other persons and is completely and totally God. A large number of Christians do
not fully understand the Trinity, and some believe things which are in fact exclusionary to a
properly formed Trinitarian belief. Technically speaking, someone who does not believe in
the Trinity is not really a Christian at all this is why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are
not considered Christians.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity

The formal defining of the doctrine of the Trinity is an example of both doctrinal
development (the doctrine was expanded and made clearer as more of the truth about God
was revealed to Man) and doctrinal proclamation. Because the Trinity is a mystery, mankind
cannot understand this teaching without God revealing it to us.

However, this gradual development should not be misunderstood to suggest that the Church
invented the notion she did not. The doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the writings of
the Church Fathers, although the word itself is not used until the formal proclamation.

Scriptural and other support for the teaching of the Trinity

In Scripture, the Trinity is revealed when Jesus says, "go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
(Matthew 28:19). Why would it refer to the name (singular) unless the three were one?

It is true that there is no explicit teaching of the Trinity in the Bible (verses which do teach it
explicitly exist in certain versions, but are felt to be later additions by most scholars). It is
important to realize that sola scriptura is a false teaching and to make the non-Catholic (or
even non-Trinitarian Catholic!) aware of this fact!

The teaching of the Trinity appears in the writings of the Church Fathers a separate
article detailing the most significant of these is provided.

Modalism a particular flavor of Trinitarian denial

There are two main types of Trinitarian heresy the notion that there are three separate gods,
rather than a single God in three Persons, and the idea that the three Persons of the Trinity are
nothing more than ways or modes by which God interacts with the universe. This is called
Modalism, and was invented in the third century by Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was
staying in Rome. He claimed there is only one Person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons
who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

In addition to being called Modalism, this heresy was also known as Sabellianism and
Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder and Patripassianism after its
implication that the person of the Father (Pater-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus
died.

Such teachings are despite the fact they were condemned many years ago by the Church
Fathers still around today. It reappeared in the early twentieth century as part of the new
Pentecostal movement. Today, it is often referred to as Jesus Only theology since it claims
that Jesus is the only Person in the Godhead and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are merely names, modes, or roles of Jesus.

Thankfully, it is easy to refute this anti-Trinitarian heresy both from the passages where the
Church Fathers condemn it (sometimes by name!) but also from Scripture. Because it says
that there is only one Person in the Godhead it is contradicted by passages which show Jesus
talking to His Father (John 17) and declaring He is going to be with the Father (John
14:12, 14:28, 16:10) One mode of a Person cannot go to be with another mode of that
Person. Nor can a mode say that He and another mode will send a third mode while
they remain in heaven, as it says in John 14:16-17, 14:26, 15:26, 16:13-15 and Acts 2:32-33.

Denial of the Trinity via belief in many gods

A number of people (including the Mormons) deny the Trinity by saying that there are many
gods. With people who hold these beliefs it will be necessary to show that there is only one
God.

Specific apologetics directed at Jehovah's Witnesses

Perhaps the most prominent group who deny the Trinity is the Jehovah's Witnesses. They
believe that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from pagan beliefs. It states in a
Watchtower book called Reconciliation Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced
then that of the trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan
the Devil.

Jehovah's Witnesses came to this conclusion as a result of faulty reasoning. One error is that
they have assumed that if two beliefs are similar, one must have come from the other. While
this is true in some cases, it is not true in all. It is a generalization to say that for any two
similar beliefs the later must come from the earlier. If this were the case, then Jehovah's
Witnesses must come from Islam! Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims reject the Trinity,
the divinity of Christ and the priesthood. By the logic of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
they must be descended from Islam!

Another error in reasoning that the Jehovah's Witnesses make is stating that beliefs which are
difficult or confusing are unreasonable and should be rejected as false. Because the Trinity is
a difficult doctrine to understand and is a mystery of our faith, Jehovah's Witnesses believe
that it is contrary to reason. The truth is that this mystery can be understood by our finite
intellects to some degree, but we are unable to understand it completely. There are other
beliefs which are shared by Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics which seem to be confusing
and against reason (such as God creating the universe out of nothing), but because we have
an infinite God, we cannot possibly comprehend and understand all He has done and all He
is.

The Holy Spirit is a Person, not a force

A number of non-Trinitarians maintain that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but rather an
impersonal force or merely the will of the Father and/or the Son. This is an advantageous
position to hold, as it effectively removes one of the persons of the Trinity from the
equation, meaning that the Trinity can't be a trinity! However, there are plenty of Scripture
verses which show that the Holy Spirit behaves or is described in a manner which
is only consistent with it not being an it but rather a He.

In Acts 8:29 and 11:3 the Holy Spirit is described as saying. In John 14:26 Jesus promises
that the Holy Spirit will teach. In Romans 8:27 the Holy Spirit is said to intercede and in I
Corinthians 2:11 He is shown as understanding. Later on in I Corinthians (12:11) the Holy
Spirit is referred to as apportioning. Finally, in Ephesians 4:30 the faithful are asked not to
grieve the Holy Spirit only a Person can grieve (or indeed do any of the things which the
other verses described Him as doing). These verses only make sense if the Holy Spirit is a
person, not an impersonal force.
Discontinuity as a Sign of a False Religion

One of the very best methods a Catholic apologist has in speaking against a non-Catholic
religion is its historical record. This does not refer to the moral behavior of its members a
perfect religion can contain imperfect men but rather to the consistency of its teachings.

Any religion which claims to provide a path to God which is superior to other paths must
have been established by God as only God (who is infinite and all-powerful) is capable of
bridging the infinite gap between God and Man. Virtually all religions claim that a founder
was divine or received divine revelation the Jewish revelation was given on Mount Sinai to
Moses, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ (who is God) personally, the
Muslims claim a divine revelation dictated the Qu'ran to Mohammed.

As most religions claim a divine founder, how can this be helpful in showing which ones are
false and which one is true? This lies in what we know about God and His nature.

We know that God is perfect and that He does not make mistakes. If God founded a religion
either personally or by a direct revelation to mankind, He would create a religion which does
not need to be changed as the world changes around it. Why would religious doctrines (not
merely disciplines or practices, but actual formal teachings of morality and dogma) need to
change as the years passed? If, for example, murder is bad when the religion is founded, why
would murder become acceptable a number of years or centuries later?

There is no answer to this a genuine religion will have a continuity of teaching. This
continuity is the hallmark of an authentic religion and is closely related to the weight of
historical evidence. Conversely, a religion which has a discontinuity of teaching is a false
religion and should not be followed. This discontinuity applies to both discontinuity over
time and discontinuity within documents.

Discontinuity Over Time

This refers to a change in doctrines over a period of time i.e. initially a particular doctrine
was held and taught but, after some time, a different doctrine was taught. Note that this only
refers to doctrines being taught within a particular religion if the discontinuity occurs at a
period of splitting off or schism then the discontinuity in and of itself is not a sign of a false
religion. It could be that the schism is, in fact, a genuine new revelation from God which
causes a change in doctrines. The one (and only) example of a genuine change in doctrines
caused by a new revelation from God is the foundation of the Catholic Church during the
Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the new revelation of God the Father, and He
caused what could accurately be regarded as a schism in the Jewish community. However, in
this case, the schismatics were right! (This can be proven by proving the truth of the Catholic
faith something which this series of articles is designed to allow you to do!)

In order to refute the notion that events such as the so-called vision and revelation
to Joseph Smith, the experience of the Millerites, the Protestant Reformation and the
dictation of the Qu'ran to Mohammed are, in fact, genuine revelations and / or a return to
genuine, primitive Christianity it will be necessary to talk about the Great Apostasy theory.
A discontinuity over time is a sign of a false religion because what need would God have to
correct Himself? Would He not ensure that His teaching was correct and understood initially?
Would God's teaching not be correct for all people and all ages? (The exception is clearly an
event of the magnitude of the incarnation of Christ, an event which was clearly prefigured by
the Old Testament. The foundation of the Catholic Church by Jesus is not so much a new
revelation designed to replace the old one, but rather a fulfillment of the old covenant and a
completion of it).

By addressing the historical discontinuities within a single religion's teachings it can be


shown that this religion is, in fact, not based on a divine plan at all, but rather a mortal one.
When seeking to bridge the infinite gap between God and Man, a divine foundation is
essential.

Note that this discontinuity does not (necessarily) need to have anything to do with the
incorrectness of a teaching. If a religion begins by approving of murder and then later on
condemns it, this does not mean that the religion is now a genuine religion. The religion may
now be advocating correct morality, but the fact that there is a discontinuity of teaching
shows that the source of the teaching was not divine, and therefore the religion is false.

Discontinuity within documents

If the official documents of a religion disagree with each other, then that is a sign of a false
religion. This can be a discontinuity over time as well (if one document was produced earlier
than another) but should normally be considered a separate type of discontinuity. If a
religious text states two different things which cannot be reconciled, then that is a clear sign
of a false religion. As an example, the official documents of the Mormons state in separate
places that there is only one God and that there are many gods. One of these statements has
to be false they cannot both be true!

Care must be taken when using this argument. It is necessary that the alleged discontinuity
cannot be explained or addressed there are examples from the Bible, for example, of what
seem to be contradictions but when more carefully examined are not. Evangelicals take great
delight in saying that the Catholic Church is un-Biblical (by which they mean she does not
agree with their interpretation of the Catholic Church's own book!) The guidelines for
reading Sacred Scripture will assist with these issues.

Also, care must be taken that the documents being compared to each other are both official
teaching of the particular religion and not just the private musings of an individual who has
no authority to speak for the religion in an official capacity as regarding teachings. As far as
the Catholic Church is concerned, this only applies to official documents issued by Councils
and the Pope, not to private documents issued by theologians or even bishops acting on their
own initiative.

As with discontinuity over time, it does not matter if the religion teaches what is right
somewhere the mere fact that there is disagreement shows that there is confusion about
what is taught. How can this be with a genuine religion from God?
False Prophecy

The final example of discontinuity is a prophecy which fails to come true. When the religion
issues or approves of a prophecy, and that prophecy does not come true (or the prophecy is
later abandoned and not mentioned) that is a sign of a false prophet. A genuine prophet would
be able to get prophecy right God would make sure of it!

Again, care must be made to distinguish between official prophetic teachings and what
basically amounts to the personal views of a member of that religion. There are many
Catholics, for example, who have issued prophecies which have later turned out to be false
but none of these prophecies have been formally approved by the Church and certainly have
not been advanced as official and authentic. The prophecies and revelations which have been
authenticated by the Church have never been proven to be inauthentic prophecies.

Note that the issue here is not with prophecies which sound outlandish or strange but rather
with prophecies which simply don't come true. An outlandish prophecy which comes true is a
genuine prophecy but a prophecy which does not is a false one!

The important thing in using this argument about discontinuity is that the apologist must
always refer to official teachings of the religion, not private views or opinions. And,
conversely, anyone wishing to attack the Catholic Church because of perceived
discontinuities must always use official teaching. It does not matter what certain
individuals within a religion do (from a teaching perspective) but rather what the
religion officially teaches.

These techniques of discontinuity in teaching and false prophecy are very effective when
used against Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Accordingly, a list of discontinuities for both
of these false religions is provided.
Examples of discontinuity in the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness religions

As is reasonably obvious, discontinuity in religious teachings is a sign of that religion being


false. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the teachings of the Mormon and Jehovah's
Witness religions. The following examples should be while not exhaustive or complete
exceptionally useful to the Catholic apologist in showing that these religions are completely
false and invented.

Mormons

The Mormons have a unique interpretation of Christianity, aided by the fact that they have
their own set of so-called Scriptures. However, those Scriptures were written over a long
period of time (obviously) were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and do not have His
protection from error. In addition, the Mormons accept the King James Version of the Bible
as inspired Scripture as well this means that there are many contradictions and
inconsistencies in the Mormon religion. In fact, there are far too many to address all of them
here. There are literally hundreds of contradictions, inconsistencies and failed prophecies in
the Mormon religion but just one is enough to make the religion invalid.

Joseph Smith's attitude to other religions

Joseph Smith wrote (in History 1:19) that he asked God what he should do about his religion.
He writes that I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they
were all wrongtheir creeds were an abomination in [Gods] sight; that those professors
were all corrupt. This event is also recounted in Pearl of Great Price God told Joseph
Smith to avoid all sects as they were corrupt. This occurred in 1820 so why did Smith
attempt to join the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1828? He approached a Reverend
Nathaniel Lewis and asked for membership but he was known to be such a charlatan that
the Methodists said that he could only join them if he publicly renounced his former
practices. Smith said that he wouldn't, and left the Methodists after three days. If God had
told him that all other religions were corrupt, why was he joining the Methodists?

Mormon teaching on abortion

Instructions on policies to be followed by the all local Mormon congregations throughout the
world are found in The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September 1998. It is
in this document that the instructions concerning abortion are found; It is a fact that a child
has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the
body (156). However, this view is contradicted by earlier teachings from Mormon
prophets (whose pronouncements are considered to be divine revelation) who used
language which is reminiscent of the Catholic position regarding abortion; the unborn person
was called a child, a baby and a human being. Abortion is also described as killing,
a grievous sin and a damnable practice. Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in
1985, taught We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing
all abortions (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).
This discontinuity in teaching clearly cannot be reconciled the only possible conclusion is
that the religion is a false and invented one.

The nature of God

The Mormons teach that there are many Gods (and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are separate Gods rather than Persons in the Trinity) but this is not consistent with all their
Scriptures and teachings. In The Book of Mormon Alma 11:28-31 reads Now Zeezrom said:
Is there more than one God? and [Amulek] answered, No. And Zeezrom said unto him
again, How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto
me. Additionally, in the second and third chapters of the Book of Moses (composed by
Smith) God is consistently referred to in the singular. In fact, throughout the whole of
the Book of Mormon, there are no references to there being more than a single God.

However, by 1834 when Smith wrote the Lectures on Faith, it appears that he is now teaching
what is known as bitheism that the Father and the Son are separate gods. But this is still
only two gods, not the many gods which the Mormons now teach.

When Smith allegedly translated the Book of Abraham from some Egyptian papyri (it is an
interesting fact to note that he just made this translation up, as later translations made by
people who actually had some knowledge of Egyptian languages showed) his views changed
yet again a plurality of gods is now suggested by the language. The book says that the
gods ordered and so forth.

In addition to this changing teaching regarding how many gods there are, there is also a great
deal of confusion concerning just what these gods (or this god . . .) are. The current teaching
is that God the Father became God the Father by working towards it he was created by his
God, was born and lived on another earth, learned and lived the "Mormon gospel," died, and
was eventually resurrected and made God over this universe. God was not always God
according to the current Mormon doctrine and such texts as The King Follett Discourse.

However, the Book of Mormon disagrees. Remember, the Book of Mormon and texts such
as The King Follett Discourse are both Mormon doctrine. Moroni 8:18 reads I know that
God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity
to all eternity and Mormon 9:9-10 reads For do we not read that God is the same yesterday,
today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now,
if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of
changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

In addition, a number of other prophets of the Mormon religion have had other ideas about
who God is. Orson Pratt said the Holy Ghost was a spiritual fluid that filled the universe.
Brigham Young said that Adam is the god of this world.

Currently, the Mormon prophet is Gordon B. Hinckley. He has commented upon the classic
Mormon doctrinal couplet As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become in a
manner which suggests the Mormons are changing their doctrine again. Interviewed in
the San Francisco Chronicle on April 13, 1997 he responded to the question [D]ont
Mormons believe that God was once a man? by saying I wouldnt say that. Theres a little
couplet coined, As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become. Now, thats more of
a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we dont know
very much about.

Polygamy

The Mormon religion originally taught that polygamy (marriage to more than one person)
was a spiritual good for those of the highest character who had proved themselves capable
of maintaining more than one family. However, this doctrine was changed as soon as the
United States Congress threatened to deny statehood to Utah in the late 1880s. Then a
revelation was suddenly received which made polygamy not only not desirable, but in fact
punishable by excommunication!

Archeology

The Book of Mormon makes a number of radical claims concerning the history of the United
States and North America claims such as two great civilizations which had a massive war
only a few thousand years ago. Such claims have been refuted by all reputable historians and
archaeologists including the Smithsonian Institute.

The book also records the presence of honeybees and horses in the ancient Americas but
these animals were introduced to the Americas by the Spanish conquistadors in 1492
onwards. This is not an internal inconsistency, but rather an example of a discrepancy
between historical reality and what the Mormon scriptures claim.

Failed prophecies

Unsurprisingly, there are many failed prophecies in the Mormon religion. Of course, even a
single prophecy failing is enough to show that Mormonism is a false religion. In this article
we will only cover some of the failed prophecies which are more than enough to show that
Joseph Smith just made everything up.

Congress will be broken up and ended

The Mormons predicted that Congress would be dissolved and broken up as a government in
the following prophecy;

While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood
vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our
petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and God shall
damn them, and there shall be nothing left of them not even a grease spot. (Millennial
Star, Vol. 22, p. 455. See also History of the Church (HC), vol. 6, p. 116, though when this
prediction was incorporated into the official history, Mormon Church leaders decided to leave
out the "grease spot" part.)

The petition was not heard and protection was not granted, but Congress was not broken up
and is part of the United States government. The compilers of History of the Church added an
editorial note in an attempt to soften or explain this prophecy. They stated that This
prediction doubtless has reference to the party in power; to the government considered as
the administration; (note, p. 116). According to the note in HC, this means the Democratic
Party, which was in control at the time. However, the prediction is that "Congress shall be
broken up as a government" and Congress is made up of representatives from both parties.
The Saints were making an appeal to the General Government, not to the Democratic Party, a
point made by a summary statement in the left margin beside this prophecy as it is recorded
in HC..

Treasure will be found in Salem, Massachusetts

In Doctrine & Covenants Section 111 the following prophecy is recorded;

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6,
1836. HC 2:465-466. At this time the leaders of the [LDS] Church were heavily in debt due
to their labors in the ministry.

1. I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey,
notwithstanding your follies.

2. I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in
this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your
instrumentality.

3. Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as
you shall be led, and as it shall be given you.

4. And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you
shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and
its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours.

5. Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.

As will be no surprise to the Catholic apologist reading this no treasure was ever discovered,
nor did Salem ever fall into the hands of the Mormons.

Jehovah's Witnesses

When engaging in apologetics with Jehovah's Witnesses there are several doctrines which the
Catholic apologist will have to deal with - including the divinity of Christ,
the Trinity (including the fact that the Holy Spirit is a person, not a force), the bodily
resurrection of Christ and the eternity of Hell. However, there are many discontinuities which
show that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a false religion.

Discontinuities in documents & over time

Many of the Jehovah's Witnesses pronouncements occur in Watchtower magazine, which is


an authoritative text for the Jehovah's Witnesses (It is through the columns of The
Watchtower that Jehovah provides direction and constant scriptural counsel to his people
(Watchtower, 5-1-1964, 277) ). What appears in this magazine can be considered
authoritative teaching and an article of faith for them. Below are supplied a few examples of
discontinuities which appeared in this magazine and elsewhere.

To worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong ... (Watchtower, 3-1880, 83). It is
unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ (Watchtower, 11-1-1964, 671).

Whether or not the men of Sodom will be resurrected has been cited several times
in Watchtower merely not consistently! The following is a brief summary of the changing
teaching. The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Watchtower, 7-1879, 7-8). The men of
Sodom will not be resurrected (Watchtower, 6-1-1952, 338). The men of Sodom will be
resurrected (Watchtower 8-1-1965, 479). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected
(Watchtower 6-1-1988, 31). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Live Forever, early ed.,
179). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Live Forever, later ed., 179). The men of
Sodom will be resurrected (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 985). The men of Sodom will
not be resurrected (Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand! 273).

With regards to military service, the Jehovah's Witnesses are also inconsistent. There could
be nothing against our consciences in going into the army. (Watchtower, 4-15-1903, 120).
Due to conscience, Jehovahs Witnesses must refuse military service. (Watchtower, 2-1-
1951, 73).

Celebrating Christmas is also a source of confusion for Jehovah's Witnesses. We may as


well join in with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event [Christmas]. (Watchtower
Reprints, 12-1-1904, 3468). Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah . . . What is their
source? . . . Satan the devil. (Watchtower, 12-15-1983, 7).

When it comes to patriotic displays of the flag, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not sure what
they should do either. Everyone in America should take pleasure in displaying the American
flag. (Watchtower Reprints, 5-15-1917, 6068). The flag is 'an idolatrous symbol'. (Awake!,
9-8-1971, 14).

Failed Prophecies

Unsurprisingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses have a long track record for failed prophecies. This
can be blamed on the fact they have a habit of giving fixed dates for the end of the world an
event about which we can know little, and certainly not the date. When reading the list of
prophecies below, it is important to remember that the world has not ended and the Second
Coming of Jesus Christ has not happened (at least not at the date of writing, 2007 AD).

Dat
Failed prophecy
e
188 The battle of the great day of God almighty (Revelation 16:14) which will end in
9 AD 1914 (Studies, Vol. 2, 1908 edition, 101).

189 With the end of AD 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom,
1 will have passed away, as already shown from prophecy (Studies, Vol. 3, 153).

189 The end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of
4 trouble (Watchtower Reprints, 1-1-1894, 1605 and 1677).

189 Our Lord is now present, since October 1874 AD (Studies, Vol. 4, 1897 edition,
7 621).

191 The six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th
6 day, the 1000 years of Christs reign began in 1873 (Studies, Vol. 2, p. 2 of foreword).

191 Scriptures . . . prove that the Lords Second Advent occurred in the fall of 1874
7 (Studies, Vol. 7, 68).

Therefore, we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham,
191
Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old (Millions Now Living Will Never Die,
8
89).

192 The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the scriptures than 1914
2 (Watchtower, 9-1-1922, 262).

1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much
192
more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a
3
coming deluge (Watchtower, 4-1-1923, 106).

192 The year of 1925 is here. . . . Christians should not be so deeply concerned about
5 what may transpire this year (Watchtower, 1-1-1925, 3).

There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovahs faithful ones on


193
earth concerning the dates 1914, 1918, & 1925 . . . and they also learned to quit fixing
1
dates (Vindication, 388, 389).

193
The disaster of Armageddon is just ahead (Salvation, 361).
9

194
Armageddon is surely near . . . soon . . . within a few years (Children, 10).
1

194 Armageddon . . . should come sometime before 1972 (They Have Found a Faith,
6 44).
Six thousand years from mans creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a
196
thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E (Life Everlasting
6
in Freedom of the Sons of God, 29).

196 The end of the six thousand years of mans history in the fall of 1975 is not tentative,
8 but is accepted as a certain date (Watchtower, 1-1-1968, 271).

Problems with the NWT

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not use normal Bible translations like the New American, Douay
or even flawed Protestant translations such as the King James Version. They use something
called the New World Translation (NWT). This was created between 1950-61 by an
anonymous committee later identified as Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder,
George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. These men were not qualified to translate the Bible
only Franz studied non-Biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew.

This version is not really a translation, but rather a paraphrase made in order to support key
Jehovah's Witness doctrines. There are many verses which have been changed in defiance of
all reasonable scholarship including the changing of the words This is my body to
This means my body in Matthew 26:28, the insertion of the word other into the text (to
make it appear as if Jesus was merely the first created being rather than God). However, this
is not the aspect of this translation which this article is concerned with (although this should
be enough to give any serious Christian pause!) This article is concerned
with contradictions within the flawed text itself.

Early editions (1950, 1961, 1970 editions) of this Bible used the word worshiped (refering
to Jesus) in Hebrews 1:6. When it came to later editions the Jehovah's Witnesses finally
realized that this showed their doctrine which denied the divinity of Christ was wrong and
so they changed the translation. The Greek word proskuneo (worship) was rendered as "do
obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah. Not
only is this an example of discontinuity over time, but also within a single document a word
should generally be translated that same way when used in the same way! If translation was
consistent, then Jesus would be worshiped as God in Matthew 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke
24:52, John 9:38 and Hebrews 1:6.

An additional example of discontinuity in translation is that the NWT uses the word
Jehovah (the name the Jehovah's Witnesses give to God) to translate the Greek
word kurios (Lord) in the New Testament when it refers to the father, but never when it
refers to Jesus (examples are Romans 10:9, I Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, II
Thessalonians 2:1 and Revelation 22:21.) If there was any sense of consistency, then Jesus
would be called Jehovah the name they give to God and would hence be
considered divine.

The name of God


The Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the correct pronunciation of the name of God is
Jehovah. Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved. (Romans 10:13)
Many scholars favor the spelling Yahweh, but it is uncertain and there is not agreement
among them. On the other hand, Jehovah is the form of the name that is most readily
recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries (Reasoning From the
Scriptures, p. 195).

But there is no consistency here for in their Aid to Bible Understanding we read, The first
recorded use of this form [Jehovah] dates from the 13th century C.E. [after Christ].
Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, used it in his book Pugeo
Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favor Yahweh as the most likely
pronunciation (pp. 884-885).

All reputable scholars agree that Yahweh is the better and more likely correct pronunciation,
but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot even get their own
false doctrines right a clear sign that this whole religion is made up!
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Paragraphs 232-267, 464-483

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER ONE
I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER

ARTICLE I
"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND
EARTH"

Paragraph 2. The Father

I. "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY
SPIRIT"

232 Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit"53 Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to
confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: "I do." "The faith of all Christians rests on the
Trinity."54

233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy
Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It
is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith,
the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the
"hierarchy of the truths of faith".56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history
of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals
himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin".57

235 This paragraph expounds briefly (I) how the mystery of the Blessed Trinity was revealed,
(II) how the Church has articulated the doctrine of the faith regarding this mystery, and (III)
how, by the divine missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Father fulfills the "plan
of his loving goodness" of creation, redemption and sanctification.

236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy
(oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity
and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life.
Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely,
the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the
mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is,
analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better
we know a person, the better we understand his actions.
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden
in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God".58 To be sure, God has
left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the
Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to
reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of
the Holy Spirit.

II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY

The Father revealed by the Son

238 Many religions invoke God as "Father". The deity is often considered the "father of gods
and of men". In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even
more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, "his first-born
son".60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is "the Father of
the poor", of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the
first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness
and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the
image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator
and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are
in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human
parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought
therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither
man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although
he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.

240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being
Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation
to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except
the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible
God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature".65

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at
Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with
him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in
its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made,
consubstantial with the Father".67

The Father and the Son revealed by the Spirit


243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the
Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the
Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the
truth".68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent
to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in
person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after
Jesus' glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical
council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the
source and origin of the whole divinity".72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not
unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God,
one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same
nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the
Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople
confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and
the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally
from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and
the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . .
And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that
belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from
whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at
Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had
already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of
Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the
Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh
centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the
Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox
Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the
Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that
he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the
consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from
the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the
eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father,
as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of
the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit
proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not
affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

III. THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE FAITH

The formation of the Trinitarian dogma

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the
Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of
baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such
formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in
the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the
fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to
deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were
deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological
work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own
terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or
"hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human
wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on
would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly
understand".82

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or
"nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to
designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the
term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the
others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the
"consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves
but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that
which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one
God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that
supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not
solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the
divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the
Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the
Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who
generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is
Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine
unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships
which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related
to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three
persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed
"everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that
unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the
Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the
Son."91

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of
Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to
take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I
mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you
today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you
as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power,
existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of
substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts
down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is
entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when
the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity
grasps me. . .92

IV. THE DIVINE WORKS AND THE TRINITARIAN MISSIONS

257 "O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!"93 God is eternal blessedness, undying life,
unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the
glory of his blessed life. Such is the "plan of his loving kindness", conceived by the Father
before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: "He destined us in love to be his sons"
and "to be conformed to the image of his Son", through "the spirit of sonship".94 This plan is a
"grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began", stemming immediately
from Trinitarian love.95 It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after
the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the
Church.96

258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the
Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same
operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but
one principle."97 However, each divine person performs the common work according to his
unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, "one
God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all
things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are".98 It is above all the divine missions of
the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the
divine persons.

259 Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known
both what is proper to the divine persons, and their one divine nature. Hence the whole
Christian life is a communion with each of the divine persons, without in any way separating
them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone
who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him.99

260 The ultimate end of the whole divine economy is the entry of God's creatures into the
perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity.100 But even now we are called to be a dwelling for the
Most Holy Trinity: "If a man loves me", says the Lord, "he will keep my word, and my Father
will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him":101

O my God, Trinity whom I adore, help me forget myself entirely so to establish myself in
you, unmovable and peaceful as if my soul were already in eternity. May nothing be able to
trouble my peace or make me leave you, O my unchanging God, but may each minute bring
me more deeply into your mystery! Grant my soul peace. Make it your heaven, your beloved
dwelling and the place of your rest. May I never abandon you there, but may I be there,
whole and entire, completely vigilant in my faith, entirely adoring, and wholly given over to
your creative action.102

IN BRIEF

261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of
Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is
consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is
one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and
by the Son "from the Father" (Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the
same God. "With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified" (Nicene Creed).

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of
this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin.
15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

265 By the grace of Baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit", we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity
of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG 9).

266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in
unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the
Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS
75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But
within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity,
especially in the divine missions of the Son's

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not
mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a
confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly
God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the
heresies that falsified it.

465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic
Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of
God's Son "come in the flesh".87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at
Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and
not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the
Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and
condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were
not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.88

466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of
God's Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at
Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated
by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine
person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this
reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God
by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature
of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but
that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to
himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according
to the flesh."90

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ
when the divine person of God's Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth
ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God
and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his
divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was
begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for
our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged
in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the
natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two
natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal
subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that
"there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the
Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as
its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who
was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the
Holy Trinity."94

469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly
the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:

"What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed", sings the Roman
Liturgy.95 And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son
and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of
the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and
were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are
one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"96

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed",97 in the mysterious union of the
Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of
Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In
parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his
own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and
does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity". The Son of God therefore communicates
to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body,
Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with
a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been
made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

Christ's soul and his human knowledge


471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or
spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational,
human soul.100

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge.
As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical
conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he
became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man",101 and
would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only
from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself,
taking "the form of a slave".103

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life
of his person.104 "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word,
knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the
case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his
Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the
secret thoughts of human hearts.107

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in
his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to
reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not
sent to reveal.109

Christ's human will

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church
confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They
are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed
humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the
Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather
submits to his divine and almighty will."111

Christ's true body

476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body was
finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical
council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be
legitimate.113

477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see
our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The
individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son. He has
made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when
portrayed in a holy image, for the believer "who venerates the icon is venerating in it the
person of the one depicted".115
The heart of the Incarnate Word

478 Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave
himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me."116 He
has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our
sins and for our salvation,117 "is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . .
love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human
beings" without exception.118

IN BRIEF

479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the
Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature
he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he
is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but
united in the one person of God's Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and
subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and
the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human
natures in the one person of the Word.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi