I have been running into so many people who are Catholic in name, but do not know their Catholic faith. Some of them have been deceived into thinking that some other churches are what Jesus actually intended (often based on the presentation of certain Bible texts).  The truth is that the Catholic Church is THE church Jesus founded and has been kept free from doctrinal error for the past 2000 years by the power of the Holy Spirit. No other church even makes that claim!  When people who belong to non-denominational churches claim that Jesus never intended denominations, they are right!!!  All the divisions of the Church are caused by sin and Satan.  But the Catholic Church is NOT a denomination... it is THE Original Church, the First Church of Christianity, founded by Christ Himself on the Rock of Peter (who stands on the greater Rock, Christ the Lord)!!

I  Resources:  Before mentioning anything else I wish to post a link that I just discovered and found most helpful.  The link is to the Catholic Answers website and is located at:

As you can see, this link is to their library and particularly to the early Church Fathers.  You can also go to the main page and enter the desired topic into their search engine at:  http://www.catholic.com  or click on the library tab to access many good resources.  This site will answer virtually any question you have.

There are many good resources available to document this claim.  The best modern authors are those who have recently left various other churches to become Catholic.  Most of these were ministers in the other churches.  The most well known modern convert apologist in the United States is Dr. Scott Hahn.  He was a minister in the Calvinist tradition and 10% of the ministers of his original denomination have followed in his footsteps and joined the Catholic Church.  He has his own website at:   scotthahn.com  Your best bet for audio tapes/CDs is to check the St. Joseph's communications link on the audio-visual page of his site.  They can send you a catalogue of all his tapes and books.  Many of his tapes are available in Holy Spirit Church's lending library in the parish foyer.

II Particular Topics

I would begin by addressing the Protestant Reformation because this is the foundation of all modern churches which sprung up since 1517, including the fundamentalist and non-denominational churches.   There was need for great reform of the church in the 16th century, just as there is in every age.  The Church Jesus founded is both human and Divine:  Human, since its parts are composed of human beings tainted by sin; Divine, since the soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit and its characteristics, promises, and gifts come from Jesus Himself.  Luther made a grave error in trying to reform the Church:  What needed reform was the sinful lives of many Catholic Christians of the time, including the Pope, Bishops, and many priests.  What was NOT needed was a change of dogmas and doctrine.  Sadly Luther invented two new teachings which can only be described as doctrines of men.  Neither of these teachings has any basis in Scripture, Tradition, or the Teachings of the Church.  In the year 1500, these doctrines did not exist, nor had they at any time in the history of the Church until Luther made them up.  They are not entirely original, but rather are distortions of the Truth.  These 2 doctrines are the foundation of the entire Reformation and without them the Protestant and non-denominational churches have no foundation.  The 2 Lutheran inventions are:

1.  The Bible Alone.  All Christian beliefs must come from the Bible alone.
2.  Salvation by Faith Alone: We are saved/justified by faith alone.

Neither the Bible nor faith are bad in any way.  The distortion introduced by Luther in both cases is contained in the key word, "Alone".  The simplest way to prove Luther wrong is this: If his argument is self-contradicting, then it can not be true.  If his arguments are true then, by his first premise, they must be proved by Scripture alone.  I challenge ANYONE, ANYWHERE to show that either of  these 2 Lutheran doctrines appear anywhere in the Bible.

1. Regarding: The Bible Alone:  Nowhere in the New Testament do the words "Scripture" (or Bible) and "alone" even appear together.  The Bible says much about itself.  For example, 2 Timothy 3: says, "16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."  But the problem is, again, the word "alone".  It is not in Scripture alone that we are to find the teachings of Jesus, but in everything handed down to us from Him through the Apostles.  As St. Paul teaches in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."  The traditions taught by Paul by "letter" are part of the Bible; The traditions taught by Paul by "word" are part of what is called Apostolic Tradition. Even the gospels testify that there is much more that could be written that was not included: In John 20:30, we read: "30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."  The Gospels are written to help us believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name"; The Gospels are not written to be a doctrinal summary of all truths. Nor are the other writings in the Bible.  The totality of the deposit of faith, i.e. ALL that we are expected to believe is found not in Scripture alone but in the Apostolic Tradition which has three parts:  First, the Scriptures. Secondly, Tradition which is the oral teachings of the Apostles not committed to the Bible; and Third, the Magisterium i.e. the teaching authority of the Church.  The Apostolic teaching can be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, such as The Didache and the writings of the Pre-Nicene Fathers as early as Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch at the turn of the 1st century AD.  The amazing thing is that if you read the Fathers from the year 107AD, you will find that they teach, believe, and practice the same faith in the same way as does the Catholic Church today, 1900 years later.
 

2. Regarding faith alone: Again, the problem is not with faith but rather with the word "alone".  If you carefully look through the entire New Testament, you will find that the words "faith" and "alone" do not even appear together anywhere... except once.   That single appearance is in the letter of James and Luther hated that reference so much that he wanted to delete James from the Bible.  James says:  "14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."  So then, where did Luther get his doctrine from if it is not supported by the Bible.  Well, he read it into Scripture, starting with Romans 3:28.  This reads: "28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."  Now, I can honestly see how one can take this single verse out of context and get the impression Luther got... but we can't leave it out of context.  Look at the beginning of Romans 3.  It is not a Protestant verses Catholic chapter (as Luther made it).  The chapter is about the Jewish ritual law and is comparing the Old and New Covenants:
 

Romans 3 says:  "1  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged. 5 But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood Gods truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. 9  What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written:   None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. 13 Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. 14 Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they do not know. 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.  19  Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show Gods righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.  27  Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Now, a couple of things are clear here: First, Paul is comparing the Jews and the Gentiles.  Otherwise, why after making his statement on faith vs. the "works of the law" in verse 28 does he then immediately in 29 say, "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also."  His point is not to say that our works are unimportant morally speaking.  His comments are directed to "the works of the law".  This is not referring to the 10 Commandments, but to the ritual laws of the Jews, i.e. the Kosher Laws and Temple sacrifices.  That is what is abolished by the death of Christ, not the 10 Commandments!!  Paul's point is not: "Ok, you've confessed Jesus as Lord, so feel free to commit murder and adultery... Do whatever you like because you will be saved anyway through your faith alone."  Rather, he is saying, "Christ has died and established a New Covenant; You are no longer bound to the kosher law.  You do not have to be circumcised to be saved."  Jesus still says, "21  "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' "  This is an interesting set of verses.  First, it shows the fallacy of the faith alone theory: After all, I don't think I could expel demons and prophesy without having faith... but Jesus lists these as examples of those who are not saved because they did not do the will of the Father.  It also puts into context the statement of Romans 10:9 which says: "because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."  We ARE to confess that Jesus is Lord with our lips, but also with our lives!!!  This is the meaning of Matthew 7:21 and it clarifies Romans 3:28.  We can not expect to say we believe and not live it and still expect to be saved.  So, what about the contrary: What if we think we are living a good life, can we be saved by our works then?  Absolutely not.  We are never saved by our works (alone) anymore than we can be saved by faith alone. We are saved by grace through faith working in love!!! That is a complete picture of our salvation.  God gives it to us as a gift.  We accept it by faith.  And we live it in deeds of love.  We owe everything to God... We couldn't do the slightest thing without Him. Yet he calls us to respond to His grace by faith, by repentance, by love, and by obedience to His Commands.  Jesus says in John's gospel (John 15:14), "You are my friends if you do what I command you." 

3. On Papal Infallibility 

One of the most disputed teachings of the Church is on Papal Infallibility.  This is attacked on 2 grounds.  First, as a misconception; Secondly, by disputing what we do actually teach.  First the misconception:  Some take this to mean that the Pope is never wrong: either that he can not sin, or that his opinion is always right, all the time, on everything.  Both these interpretations are ridiculous!!!   Papal Infallibility only means that the Pope, when teaching for the entire Church, either alone or with a Council, can not err, when proclaiming a dogma of faith or morals.  An example:  The Church teaches as a dogma of the faith that all Catholics must believe, that Mary was assumed into Heaven, body and soul, at the end of her life.  This is called the dogma of the Assumption.  It was proclaimed as dogma by the Pope only in 1950.  But on the other hand, it was universally accepted and celebrated liturgically for more than 1300 years prior to its proclamation.  The dogma did not create a new belief; It merely highlighted a belief that was already universally accepted and ancient.  The Pope would not and could not have proclaimed this as a dogma unless it were already present in the canon of belief handed down by the Apostles which we call Apostolic Tradition.   Papal Infallibility can not create new beliefs.  It can only declare more emphatically things which are already accepted by the Church.  

Now, the challenge is this:  If anyone disputes this doctrine of Papal Infallibility, they bear the burden of proof that the dogma is wrong.... and I would say that they are hard pressed.  The Catholic Church, after 2,000 years of teaching, has NEVER had to retract as heretical, a dogma once proclaimed as true.  This is not true of other faiths.  The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, have incorrectly predicted, and then changed, their teaching on the date for the end of the world and the second coming.  Each time, they are proved wrong, they simply change their prediction.  Other churches have done the same thing.  The Catholic Church also has erred in matters of discipline: For example, the Inquisition is regarded by many as an error; Likewise the condemnation of Gallileo... but these are not dogmas, and the Church does not claim to always do the right thing... as is evident of the scandals involving the sins of the clergy in the past few years.  But dogmas are another matter, and if you check the historical records, you will find that the church has never needed to retract a dogma proven to be wrong.  For evidence of the four strongest historical cases against Papal Infallibility and why they fail to prove their case, I recommend Tim Staples and a two album set on Papal Infallibility published by St. Joseph's communications.  They can be reached at 1-800-526-2151.  The tape albums are called:  Keys of the Kingdom (which is part I, item #7903), and Infallibility vs. Impeccability (which is part II,  item #7908).  I have listened to both sets of tapes and found them to be very inspiring.  Remember, the tapes start with the four most damaging  incidents to disprove Papal Infallibility and then show why they do not disprove the dogma.

Another note:  What follows is property of  listadmin@lists.catholicexchange.com from Mark Shea & Jeff Cavins.  I receive email from them daily and this was the best illustration of the infallibility of the church I've heard yet:

The wonderful thing about the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church is simply that he is there.  Many people have the notion that the Church's claim to infallibility is some arrogant swagger of superiority.  But suppose you met someone who said, "I'm kinda dumb and not very good at remembering things.  And I'm prone to wander when I should be working and paying attention.  So I've been given a guardian who makes sure that I don't lose what I was entrusted with, since if I do, no one else will have a chance to enjoy the gift I was given."  You wouldn't instantly come away with the impression that such a person was arrogant.  At best, you might think them a little dim and their guardian a saint of patience and perseverance.  Well, that dim bulb is called the Church and her long-suffering guardian who protects the gift of the gospel is the Holy Spirit.  He sticks with us and reminds us of the treasure of the faith so that we never misplace it.  That's all infallibility means.  Today, thank God the Spirit for his eternal vigilance on our behalf.

4.  On Confession to a Priest

The following section covers the Sacrament of Confession.  It is copied directly from the Catholic Answers website and is found at:
http://www.catholic.com/library/forgiveness_of_sins.asp    Please check out their site (as also noted above) for much helpful information.

All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.

Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism—sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).

For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 8:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).

Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).

Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." It would take much time. And he promised them assistance: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).

If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. If, on the other hand, the sacramental forgiveness of sins was what Fundamentalists term it, an "invention," and if it was something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or political leaders, we’d expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles.

What’s more, if the Catholic Church instituted confession (or "auricular confession," as some like to emphasize: private confession "to the ear" of a priest), and if the sacrament did not stem directly from Christ, it should be possible to point to a date for its "invention." Some opponents of the Catholic position think they can do that.

Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, claims "auricular confession to a priest instead of to God" was instituted in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. This is an extreme example, even for a committed anti-Catholic. Few people have the gumption to place the "invention" of confession so late, since there is so much early Christian writing—a good portion of it one thousand or more years before that council—that refers to the practice of confession as something already long-established.

Actually, the Fourth Lateran Council did discuss confession. To combat the lax morals of the time, the council regulated the already-existing duty to confess one’s sins by saying that Catholics should confess any mortal sins at least once a year. To issue an official decree about how frequently a sacrament must be celebrated is hardly the same as "inventing" that sacrament.

The earliest Christian writings, such as the first-century Didache, are indefinite on the procedure for confession to be used in the forgiveness of sins, but a verbal confession is listed as part of the Church’s requirement by the time of Irenaeus (A.D. 180). He wrote that the disciples of the Gnostic heretic Marcus "have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing themselves from the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22).

The sacrament of penance is clearly in use, for Irenaeus speaks of making an outward confession (versus remaining silent) upon which the hope of eternal life hangs, but it is not yet clear from Irenaeus just how, or to whom, confession is to be made. Is it privately, to the priest, or before the whole congregation, with the priest presiding? The one thing we can say for sure is that the sacrament is understood by Irenaeus as having originated in the infant Church.

Later writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the whole process of penance is termed exomologesis, which means confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only." Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an "invention." (See the Catholic Answers tract Confession for full quotes from the early Church Fathers on the sacrament of penance.)

Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.

Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:12–15).

If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority.

Still, some people are not convinced. One is Paul Juris, a former priest, now a Fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet on this subject. The pamphlet is widely distributed by organizations opposed to Catholicism. The cover describes the work as "a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins." Juris mentions "two main schools of thought," the Catholic and the Fundamentalist positions.

He correctly notes that "among Christians, it is generally agreed that regular confession of one’s sins is obviously necessary to remain in good relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?"

This sounds fine, on the surface, but this apparently reasonable approach masks what really happens next. Juris engages in verse slinging, listing as many verses as he can find that refer to God forgiving sins, in hopes that the sheer mass of verses will settle the question. But none of the verses he lists specifically interprets John 20:23, and none contradicts the Catholic interpretation.

For instance, he cites verses like these: "Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38–39); "And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned’" (Mark 16:15–16).

Juris says that verses like these demonstrate that "all that was left for the disciples to do was to ‘go’ and ‘proclaim’ this wonderful good news (the gospel) to all men. As they proclaimed this good news of the gospel, those who believed the gospel, their sins would be forgiven. Those who rejected (did not believe) the gospel, their sins would be retained." Juris does nothing more than show that the Bible says God will forgive sins and that it is through Jesus that our sins are forgiven—things no one doubts. He does not remotely prove that John 20:23 is equivalent to a command to "go" and to "preach," merely that going and preaching are part of God’s plan for saving people. He also sidesteps the evident problems in the Fundamentalist interpretation.

The passage says nothing about preaching the good news. Instead, Jesus is telling the apostles that they have been empowered to do something. He does not say, "When God forgives men’s sins, they are forgiven." He uses the second person plural: "you." And he talks about the apostles forgiving, not preaching. When he refers to retaining sins, he uses the same form: "When you hold them bound, they are held bound."

The best Juris can do is assert that John 20:23 means the apostles were given authority only to proclaim the forgiveness of sins—but asserting this is not proving it.

His is a technique that often works because many readers believe that the Fundamentalist interpretation has been proven true. After all, if you propose to interpret one verse and accomplish that by listing irrelevant verses that refer to something other than the specific point in controversy, lazy readers will conclude that you have marshalled an impressive array of evidence. All they have to do is count the citations. Here’s one for the Catholics, they say, looking at John 20:21–23, but ten or twenty for the Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists must be right!

Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any better off than the non-Catholic who confesses directly to God? Yes. First, he seeks forgiveness the way Christ intended. Second, by confessing to a priest, the Catholic learns a lesson in humility, which is avoided when one confesses only through private prayer. Third, the Catholic receives sacramental graces the non-Catholic doesn’t get; through the sacrament of penance sins are forgiven and graces are obtained. Fourth, the Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; he does not have to rely on a subjective "feeling." Lastly, the Catholic can also obtain sound advice on avoiding sin in the future.

During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to make God’s forgiveness present to all people, and the whole Christian world accepted this, until just a few centuries ago. If there is an "invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the notion that the sacramental forgiveness of sins is not to be found in the Bible or in early Christian history.

5. Prayer to Saints; Use of statues and Blessed images

One person put the question to me of actually praying to a statue!!!  Let me start with that: To pray to an object of any kind is idolatry or sheer stupidity as far as Christianity is concerned.  Period.

Secondly, to worship anything or anyone other than God is idolatry. period.

Having said that, in what sense can we use blessed objects or "pray" to a saint which is not worship?  We can use blessed objects as a reminder of a person or an event... A crucifix reminds us of the intense love Jesus showed us in dying on the Cross.  There is nothing in Scripture against this.  The Deuteronomic injunction against graven images applies to images one might worship as an idol.  It does not prohibit an object used as a reminder in religion any more than it would prohibit the carrying of a loved ones picture in a wallet or family pictures hanging on a wall.  Specifically, the interpretation of this commandment to prohibit the use of images in worship is called the Iconoclast heresy which was already condemned by the councils of the early church by the year 800.  It was partially the result of Islamic fluence which caused certain persons and groups to misinterpret the 10 commandments to forbid any images at all in worship.  The best and earliest proof  that God did not forbid the use of images across the board but only the worship of images as idols is in the case of Moses and the bronze serpent: God commanded  Moses to make a bronze serpent and all who looked on it would be healed (by God's command).  The 10 commandments only forbade the making of images to worship as idols.  

The next issue is regarding whether or not one can "pray" to saints or not;  Is that not idolatry?  Clearly, it is permitted and is not idolatry.  Idolatry forbids the worship of something as God.  But is not praying to someone the same thing as making them God? No!!!  The problem is not with the practice; the problem is with the English rendering of it.  In traditional English, I can ask a favor of someone by saying, "I pray thee, pass me the salt."  It only means to ask.  Christianity encourages us to pray for one another, does it not?  So if I ask another Christian to lay hands on me for healing or to pray with me for something, that is entirely Scriptural.  So there is nothing wrong with asking another person to pray for me.  But what about Christ being the sole mediator between God and man?  He is!!!!   There is no prayer from anyone that does not pass through Him!!  And no prayer uttered by anyone is of any effect except through the grace won by Our Lord through His death on the Cross.  Whether I ask you to pray for me or Mary, the Mother of Jesus to do so, it is the same thing... the only difference is that she is in the very presence of God in Heaven and perhaps will pray better than someone on Earth.... After all, "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." (James 5:16)... and who is more righteous than those who stand in the presence of God in Heaven. Or do you not remember Hebrews where it says, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses..." (Hebrews 12:1)?  Yes, those in Heaven are awake and fully in God's presence.  But what about the prohibition of conjuring up the dead, as in seances...   True, we are forbidden to try to conjure up the dead.  But it is quite different to ask a saint in Heaven to pray for us compared to asking a soul in Sheol (before the first coming of Christ) to appear to us... as Saul invoked Samuel's ghost  to find out his fate.  Saul was seeking occult knowledge which is always forbidden (as in seances);  Seeking the prayers of another Christian is always encouraged....  the only condition is that those whose prayers we seek must be in Heaven or on Earth.  Neither the souls in Purgatory, nor those in Hell pray for us.

6. Rote Prayers

Another common objection presented to Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) is the accusation that we "rattle on like the pagans do" in defiance of the teaching of Jesus.  A number of things are involved here.  First, what Jesus objects to is the practice of praying longer just to obtain a hearing, as if longer prayers were more likely to be answered with a "yes".  In addition to that practice, one can also validly object to praying without attentiveness... i.e. just mumbling words while daydreaming.  I think it is easy to agree that that is not true prayer.  St Theresa of Avila in her teaching on prayer states that vocal prayer is not prayer at all if it is not accompanied by the attention of the mind.  

Having agreed on all that, then let me mention three areas which may not be so clear:  Liturgical or formal prayer, verbal prayers, and the question of distraction in prayer.  Liturgical prayer, especially the Mass is by definition formal.  Does that make it less prayerful.  No.  But the Mass can be prayed with real reverence and devotion, or the priest and/or people can just go through the motions.  The Mass is definitely in line with what God intends.  After all, Jesus commanded us, "Do this in memory of me."  There are not too many prayers that Jesus commanded.  We are to offer the Eucharist until the Second Coming as the principal form of Christian worship because it is what Jesus commanded.  How about verbal prayers?  Again, the only other specific prayer that Jesus commanded is what we now call the Our Father or the Lord's Prayer.  When the disciples asked Him to teach them how to pray, He said, "When you pray, say, "Our Father..."  Now Jesus could have said, "Just sit with God and talk" and we do that... but the answer He gave involves a definite verbal form.  Many have meditated on the words of the Our Father and derived great benefit from their meditations.... and that brings us to an important point: Rote prayers are designed to inspire, to make us lift our hearts us to God.  They are never to be mumbled without attention.   This brings us to the third point, i.e. that of distractions in prayer.  It is normal that the mind will wander during prayer.  This is not displeasing to God if it is not voluntary.  God wants us to be attentive to Him while praying, just as we are to be attentive to a person who is speaking with us.  If the mind accidentally wanders, it is our duty to recollect ourselves.  This means that as soon as I am aware that my mind is off on something not related to God, I should gently bring my attention back to Him.  For example, it is impossible to pray the Rosary and keep focused on the actual words of the prayers; But the Rosary is designed to be a meditation on the mysteries of the life of Christ and His mother.  The mysteries should hopefully be the focus of our attention while praying the Rosary.  For example, while meditating on the first Glorious mystery (the Resurrection of Jesus), I could read gospel passages about the resurrection from any of the Gospels.   I admit, I have had a hard time meditating on the Rosary, but I must also confess that the Lord has given me great peace during the praying of the Rosary, even if my mind didn't behave as well as I would have liked.  The most important thing of all about prayer is to remember that we are praying to our heavenly Father who is all loving and all merciful towards us.  Let us approach Him with confidence, trusting in His love, for if He has given us His only Son, "will He not give us all things besides?"  

More to come.............