How Old Is Your Church?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

--Taken from EWTN

Is This Really What the Early Christians Were Martyred For?

No words. Just this link...

Okay, some words:
Oy. It's all about the show and the numbers. Not to say anything of their sincerity to reach people for Christ, but really? This is false religiosity folks. It's "cool" and "comfortable." This is not the gospel, no matter how you spin it.

Where's Jesus? Where's the sacred? Where the heck are they hiding the cross? Do they even have one?

I prefer a break from the everyday bombardment of culture and entertainment. Most of it's trash anyway.

Thank God for the Catholic Church.

Which Church Father Are You?

On Mike Aquilina's blog, there is a test you can take to see which Church Father you are. It's fun and it might lead you to take a closer look at the Saint that comes up. Nothing is by chance!

_____________________________________________________________

You’re St. Melito of Sardis!

You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins.

Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

_____________________________________________________________

Happy Solemnity of SS. Peter & Paul

June 29th marks the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, those two most glorious apostles who founded the Church at Rome and bathed the early Church in their martyred blood. May we take them as an example and ask them to pray for us in our lives as Christians!

St. Peter & St. Paul, ora pro nobis!!

A Gem from St. Augustine

St. Augustine writes, in his sermon to the Catechumens about the Creed :

"The same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. " [emphasis mine]

I realize that I have posted this quote before on my blog, but it's too good not to share again. He paints such an eloquent picture of the Church; a Church that has weathered the test of time and has remained consistent, growing in Truth and in Charity. It makes me so proud to be Catholic and to know that my family stretches through the ages; that our beliefs transcend time and space and unite us even now 1,600 years later.

"The Obligation to Return"

Over at Called To Communion, a recent comment on the thread concerning Doug Wilson's take on the fate of faithful Catholics really had some eloquent and really challenging words - in a good way. Bryan Cross comments:

"John Armstrong writes about his encounter with someone making a claim similar to Doug Wilson’s.

What follows from granting that Catholics who believe Catholic doctrine, can be saved? According to Trueman, the answer seems to be this: the obligation to return. At that point, any reforming that one believes still needs to be done, can be done from within the Church. Schism from the Church can no longer be justified as necessary for salvation. Hence Matt’s statement in this post:

The Protestant, to remain Protestant, must hold that the issues that still divide Rome and Geneva are issues where salvation is at stake. If they are not, they are issues that do not justify continued schism …

Chris, you wrote in comment #33, in response to that statement by Matt:

I’m not so sure about this. There are other obstacles that have cropped up since the Reformation (dogmatizing papal infallibility; increased emphasis on the theotokos being co-redemptrix; scandals covered from the top down).

I agree that these would be obstacles, i.e. matters that make it more difficult, all other things being equal, for Protestants to return to full communion with the Church from which they separated in the sixteenth century. But it seems to me that that is fully compatible with Matt’s statement. If a present-day Protestant comes to recognize that perhaps he was wrong about the Council of Trent being wrong, that it didn’t “anathematize the gospel,” that one can believe what the Church teaches and be saved, and that therefore Protestants were not right to leave the Catholic Church, he realizes that had Protestants remained in the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century as faithful Catholics, it would have been incumbent on them as Catholics to “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God” — not only what the Church taught definitively at the Council of Trent but also, three centuries later, what she taught in 1854 about Mary’s Immaculate Conception, what she taught about the Papal office at the First Vatican Council, and what she has taught since the sixteenth century regarding Mary’s role in our salvation. He would understand that to be a Catholic is to exercise faith in Christ by receiving in faith and humility what Christ’s Church teaches, as St. Thomas explains. And he would understand that the Church has in fact continued to teach and define dogmas, over the nearly five hundred years since Protestants separated from her. Therefore, he wouldn’t necessarily view the subsequent Catholic teachings as things to be retracted by the Church in order for him to return to full communion with her, but instead, as matters for him to believe by faith, in order to ‘catch up’ to be rejoined to her.

He would recognize that had Protestants remained in the Church as faithful Catholics, they would have known that even when individual bishops cause scandal by their sins, the worst possible thing to do in response is to leave the Church and form a schism, as the Donatists did. The disciples were not justified in running away from Jesus in the Garden, just because Judas betrayed Him. If Protestants had remained faithful Catholics, they would have known that the right thing to do, in such cases, is to remain within the Church, pray for her, and make reparations for the sins of others. And so he would see it as his responsibility to do the same. That’s why, I think, John Gerstner was able to say, “[I]f we’re wrong on sola fide, I’d be on my knees outside the Vatican in Rome tomorrow morning doing penance.” There is an inconsistency, in such a statement, because to recognize the Church’s authority regarding these other doctrines is inconsistent with denying her authority with regard to Trent 6. But, I think he was trying to get at the idea that if the Catholic Church was right at Trent, then the rest follows, in the way I just described. And then he should be “doing penance.”

And what penance we [who were Protestant] must do. Like Saul who became Paul, we fought against the Church in many ways, for so many years, and led others to do the same, by our example of remaining separate from her, and by our words against her and her doctrine. Now we must serve her all the more."

I think that this is the type of dialogue and charity that we are called to do with one another, so that all may be convinced of the sincerity of our Truth.

St. Joseph, patron saint of the Church Universal, ora pro nobis!

Baptism

Why must people confuse the "plain meaning" of scripture when it does not fit within their theological paradigm?

I have read, heard, and researched from countless evangelical, free, protestant 'church' communities that baptism is not necessary for salvation or that it's something symbolic that is really not a 'big deal' in the life of a believer. Yet there are other protestants that say that baptism is necessary and that it is okay for infants to be baptized. Well, what is it? Aren't they all using the same Bible?!

A local community 'church' says that it's important to be baptized but that it does not save you. However, they seem to forget or to gloss over some important verses from 1 Peter 3:18-21, where Peter speaks about how Noah and his family were saved through water and that "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now." Baptism is the first step towards living in Christ. Indeed it initiates the person into the family, so to speak. Faith in Christ and baptism are necessary for salvation. I believe it's in the confusion about the efficacy of the sacrament itself where things begin to come into contention. But I must back it up further by defining what exactly is a sacrament and even further to show that this sacrament has been explained the exact same way for 2000 years down through the ages by Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, which according to St. Paul is the "pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Taylor Marshall over at Called To Communion says,

"Sacramental baptism is the means by which Christ regenerates the soul, washes away original sin, and incorporates a person into His mystical Body. It infallibly confers grace. Christ said that unless a person be baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (cf. Jn 3:3-5). And since God “wills all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), it was fitting that this sacrament might be administered by anyone and with an element that is universally available – water. Whereever there are humans, there is water. The universal desire for humanity’s salvation can be discerned by God’s generosity in this regard.

Since baptism is necessary for salvation, Pope Gelasius I (pope from AD 492 till 496) decreed that the baptisms of laymen and laywomen were valid and accepted by Christians everywhere. Sacred Tradition even records that the Ethiopian Eunuch, baptized by St Philip in Acts 8, brought back the saving sacrament of baptism to Ethiopia."

I've also recently sent an e-mail to a local protestant community church pastor concerning their baptism brochure. I will reprint the conversation in full:

Hello and good day,

Sorry this is out of the blue, but I wanted to make you aware of something that I saw in your brochure on baptism that I found on the internet. I'm slightly local and I know some people who attend [church name]. They like it there and browsing your site I found this brochure. It made me curious and so naturally, I want to find out. :)

I looked at the baptism brochure and I find that there are some things that do not make sense to me. All I am looking for is clarity. Specifically, and I guess the one that stands out the most to me, is when it describes that "It is important to understand that baptism does not “save” you." Why was the word "save" put in quotes? Why can't baptism and faith in Christ, working hand in hand, save you? Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both/and?

The Bible clearly states in 1 Peter 3:21 that " ²¹ and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (NIV) [emphasis mine]. How does that verse get reconciled with what is stated in the brochure? Does it just get dismissed if it doesn't fit? It seems to me that it effects salvation because of Christ's Resurrection. God can set aside anything to be holy, right? Is it much of a stretch (on our part) to grant God the power to use water in this way? I find elsewhere that in Titus 3:5-7, St. Paul states "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (NIV). Again, how does that verse get reconciled with what is stated in the brochure? Clearly, to me, the washing being spoken about is baptism. In John 3:3-5, he records that, "³ Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again'.⁴ 'How can someone be born when they are old?' Nicodemus asked. 'Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born! '⁵ Jesus answered, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit' " (NIV). When I read this passage of scripture, I cannot but help think of baptism. Christ seems to clearly state that it is required of all believers not just symbolically to be baptized, but that it actually is necessary for salvation; albeit just one piece of the puzzle. Or what about what Jesus commanded at the end of Matthew's gospel, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matt 28:19 (NIV). I just find that there are numerous examples in the Bible that are overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that baptism does indeed have a hand in one's salvation.

The Spirit clearly has involvement in all aspects of the believers life. It seems that, even from a cursory reading, baptism as stated in scripture effects some piece of salvation. I can't find any verse in the Bible that says "baptism does not save you" or something to that effect. Quite the opposite. And just because it is not mentioned in a particular verse does not mean that it is not essential. Can I clarify my thinking?

Moving on, another aspect that stood out to me was the last paragraph on the back. The one which states, "Some churches baptize infants. At Crosspoint we don’t. We only baptize those who have made a decision to believe in Christ’s death as a payment for their sin. In the Bible, men and women were baptized following their belief in Jesus. Therefore, if you were baptized as a baby, we encourage you to be baptized by immersion as a believer." Focusing more on the aspect of getting baptized again, where in sacred scripture does it require someone to be baptized again if they were previously baptized as a child? One time should suffice! If someone is baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" it's a valid baptism, correct? As stated by Jesus Himself, "Spirit gives birth to spirit." Wouldn't that be the same Spirit that someone has throughout their life working in them and with them? It doesn't go away or not work because someone else wished that the person be baptized as a child. Isn't that how the covenant was passed on in the days before Jesus? The Jewish parents would circumcise the child to indicate that they too were a part of the covenant family. Through a parent's faith, they want their child to be set aside for Christ and to grow knowing him. In the Bible other people's faith also procured healing/salvation/miracles for their friends (i.e.- the paralytic that was lowered through the roof by his friends). Why is it frowned upon if someone is baptized as an infant? Christians have been doing it for 2,000 years to my knowledge starting with the apostles. Why the change and what is the reasoning behind what was written in the brochure? Is it more to show people of a particular church that a person is serious about joining? Is it a mis-trust of God that he couldn't have worked through the first baptism, so just to make sure, it must be done again? Especially if there is a record of this person being baptized, I do not understand why it should be done again? Could you help me understand the reasoning? (Sorry for all the questions!)

I ask all these things in charity and I truly want to know how these can be reconciled with what some parts of the Bible say and with what is contained in the brochure. My curiosity sometimes gets the best of me :) Please do not think of this as an attack. We are called to defend our faith when necessary and there are many things that are hard and difficult to sort through and understand. We build each other up as Christians. I eagerly await your response. Have a very blessed day!

Faith seeking understanding...

And his response was this:

Thanks for the note.

Regarding the idea that baptism doesn’t save you…the quotes don’t really mean anything, and probably need to be removed to avoid confusion I guess. The truth we are trying to convey in that section is Ephesians 2:8-9. That we are saved only by grace, through faith. Not by any ‘good works’ we do. We believe that baptism is going public with your faith. It is an outward profession to the community and church family around you that you have given your life to Christ, and follow Him in all things. It represents that we are dying to self, and the old creation is gone, and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Regarding the baptism of infants. We encourage people who have been baptized as an infant, if they have now put their faith and trust in Christ for salvation, to follow Jesus’ example in baptism. It is not a requirement that we put on people, simply an invitation that if they are being led by the Spirit to take that step now as a student or an adult to respond. We have people who were baptized as infants, and yet have not done it as an adult. We’re ok with that. We also have people (just this last Sunday, we baptized someone like this) who were baptized as an infant, but now as a student/adult, want to take that step of obedience following their decision to give their lives to Jesus and follow Him as their Lord and Savior.

I hope that helps clarify our beliefs and practices. I’m thankful your friends enjoy [church name]. God bless!

Not to be harsh, but this is not the answer that I was hoping to receive. I wanted something more deep and more "convincing." I suppose this is the best he can do though as a protestant minister. How can we foster more fruitful dialogue?

The Bible...

... is a Catholic book.

*gasp*

Yep. Wonderfully, authentically, Catholic.

So good.

On Calvin's "The Institutes"

It's been awhile.

Recently I have purchased John Calvin's The Institutes of the Christian Religion. I intend to get through it all with a red pen and a critical eye. If anyone has any particular insights or ways to get a better understanding of Calvin's position, I would welcome it. It's too bad that he was so wrong on some things and the effects of his heresies.

May the Lord give me patience and a good eye! Sts. Francis de Sales and Optatus, ora pro nobis!

FOCUS

Anyone who is somebody should try to make it to a FOCUS conference at least once in their life. FOCUS stands for Fellowship of Catholic University Students and it was founded by Curtis Martin in 1998.

Conference truly changes lives and the excitement that it generates for the Lord and among college and university students is palpable. Plus, there are nuns and priests and monks everywhere. Pretty cool. And perpetual adoration, confession, and in this year's case, Emilio Estevez. By the way, everyone should see his new movie coming out during Holy Week, "The Way" staring his father, Martin Sheen (whose name comes from the respect that he had for Archbishop Sheen from the '50s.) I digress.

Conference allows you to recharge and re-(dare I say) focus on the things that are important. Namely, your relationship with Christ. It's one thing to know it in your head, it's another thing to have faith and experience it firsthand. Go to conference.