The reason why I was away for almost a month...

I got married :)

From Traitor to Hero, Responding to The Gospel of Judas

Headlines around the world are announcing the publication of a "long lost" and "suppressed" ancient document, known as The Gospel of Judas. The National Geographic Society announced the publication at a major media event on Thursday, just in time to boost publicity for its Sunday night special on the National Geographic Channel.

The announcement led to a frenzy of media coverage, ranging from responsible reports to outrageous sensationalism. According to some commentators, the publication of this new document will force a complete reformulation of Christianity and our understanding of both Judas and Jesus. In reality, nothing of the sort is in view. The document is highly interesting, however, offering an ancient and authoritative source into the thinking of heretical groups who offered alternative understandings of Christianity.

The document purports to be written by Judas, even though it certainly was written long after Judas's death. Nevertheless, the very existence of this document, rooted in the third century after Christ, indicates something of the struggle Christian leaders confronted in defining and defending the authentic Gospel against heretical groups such as the Gnostics.

A quick look at The Gospel of Judas reveals the contrast between this document and the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The English version, edited by Rudolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, presents an accessible and readable version of the portions of the Codex Tchacos now available. The most remarkable feature of this text is its thoroughly Gnostic character. The substance of this gospel bears virtually no resemblance to orthodox Christianity--a fact which explains why the early church recognized this writing for what it is, and rejected it as neither authoritative nor authentic.

In The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, Herbert Krosney explains how the codex was discovered and traces the events that led to its publication in English this week:

"In the mid- to late 1970s, hidden for more than fifteen hundred years, an ancient text emerged from the sands of Egypt. Near the banks of the Nile River, some Egyptian peasants, fellahin, stumbled upon a cavern. In biblical times, such chambers had been used to bury the dead. The peasants entered the cave, seeking ancient gold or jewelry, anything of value that they could sell. Instead, among a pile of human bones, they discovered a crumbling limestone box. Inside it, they came upon an unexpected find--a mysterious leather-bound book, a codex."

The portion of the text that is now translated is taken from thirteen pages of papyrus, with the text written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egypt. Most scholars agree that The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Greek, and later translated into Coptic. This was the common history of many Gnostic texts, especially those associated with groups common to the area in which the manuscript was found.

The Lost Gospel reads like a suspense thriller at times, tracing the odd and admittedly remarkable story of how the codex was preserved and eventually published. Those familiar with the story of the Dead Sea scrolls and the documents of the Nag Hammadi library will recognize significant parallels in the saga of how the texts and manuscripts were found and eventually made available for scholarly review and publication.

The Gnostic character of the text is immediately evident. In his supposed conversations with Judas, Jesus speaks in Gnostic categories such as "aeons" and an "eternal realm." Judas is identified as the "thirteenth spirit" who was appointed by God to be the agent of releasing Jesus from the physical body in which He was trapped in the incarnation.

When Judas speaks of a vision and asks for its interpretation, Jesus answers: "Judas, your star has led you astray." Jesus continues: "No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and . . . sent it . . . on the twelve aeons."

The concept of secret and mysterious knowledge was central to Gnostic sects. The Gospel of Judas purports to reveal conversations between Jesus and Judas that had been kept secret from the rest of humanity. The Gnostics prized their secret knowledge, and taught a profound dualism between the material and spiritual worlds. They understood the material world, including the entire cosmos, to be a trap for the spiritual world. In essence, the Gnostics sought to escape the material world and to enter the world of spirit.

Accordingly, the most revealing statement in the entire text of The Gospel of Judas records Jesus saying to Judas, "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

In other words, Judas would perform a service to Jesus by betraying Him to those who would then crucify Him, liberating Jesus from the physical body and freeing Him as spirit. As the editors of The Gospel of Judas indicate in a footnote, "The death of Jesus, with the assistance of Judas, is taken to be the liberation of the spiritual person within."

Needless to say, this is in direct conflict with the Christian gospel and the New Testament. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus came in order to die for sinners--willingly accepting the cross and dying as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin.

This redemptive action is completely missing from The Gospel of Judas. For that reason, the text was rejected by early Christian leaders. Writing about the year 180, Irenaeus, a major figure among the early church fathers, identified the text now known as The Gospel of Judas as heretical. In his foreword to The Lost Gospel, Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explains, "This gospel was about the relationship between Jesus and Judas, and indicated that Judas didn't actually betray Jesus, but did what Jesus wanted him to do, because Judas was the one who really knew the truth, as Jesus wanted it communicated."

Ehrman, no friend to orthodox Christianity, has correctly explained the problem. Irenaeus rejected the text precisely because it was in direct conflict with the canonical gospels and with the teaching of the Apostles. Accordingly, it was his responsibility to warn the church about the heretical nature of this document. Still, the very fact that Irenaeus mentions the document with such a specific reference gives considerable credence to the claim that The Gospel of Judas is as old in its origin as its patrons now claim.

We now know a great deal about the Gnostic sects common to the first centuries of Christianity. The particular sect thought to be associated with the origin of The Gospel of Judas was known as the Cainites. The peculiar teachings of this sect included the rehabilitation of many characters presented negatively in the Bible--starting with Cain. In essence, the Cainites attempted to take the negative figures of the Bible and present them in a heroic light. In order to do this, of course, they had to create alternative texts and an alternative rendering of the story of Jesus.

What are Christians to make of all this? The publication of The Gospel of Judas is a matter of genuine interest. After all, it is important for Christians to understand the context of early Christianity--a context in which the church was required to exercise tremendous discernment in confronting heretical teachings and rejecting spurious texts.

The scholarly research behind the publication of The Gospel of Judas appears to be sound and responsible. The codex manuscript was submitted to the most rigorous historical process in terms of dating, chemical composition, and similar questions. In the end, it appears that the document is most likely authentic, in terms of its origin from within a heretical sect in the third century.

Nevertheless, extravagant claims about the theological significance of The Gospel of Judas are unwarranted, ridiculous, and driven by those who themselves call for a reformulation of Christianity.

The resurgence of interest in Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas is driven by an effort, at least on the part of some figures, to argue that early Christianity had no essential theological core. Instead, scholars such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University want to argue that, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse--and fascinating--the early Christian movement really was." What Pagels and many other figures argue is that early Christianity was a cauldron of competing theologies, and that ideological and political factors explain why an "orthodox" tradition eventually won, suppressing all competing theologies. Accordingly, these same figures argue that today's Christians should be open to these variant teachings that had long been suppressed and hidden from view.

Metropolitan Bishoy, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, dismissed The Gospel of Judas as "non-Christian babbling resulting from a group of people trying to create a false 'amalgam' between the Greek mythology and Far East religions with Christianity . . . They were written by a group of people who were aliens to the main Christian stream of the early Christianity. These texts are neither reliable nor accurate Christian texts, as they are historically and logically alien to the main Christian thinking and philosophy of the early and present Christians." The Metropolitan is right, but we are better armed to face the heresies of our own day if we face with honesty the heresies of times past.

Simon Gathercole, a New Testament professor at Aberdeen University, defended the text as authentic, but relatively unimportant. "It is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new," Gathercole explains. "It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later."

Indeed, those Gnostic ideas did become popular later, and they are becoming increasingly popular now. The truth of the Gospel stands, and Christians will retain firm confidence in the authenticity of the New Testament and, in particular, of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Nevertheless, old Gnosticisms are continually repackaged and "rediscovered" even as new forms of Gnostic thought emerge in our postmodern culture.

Informed Christians will be watchful and aware when confronting churches or institutions that present spurious writings, rejected as heretical by the early church, on the same plane as the New Testament.
The verdict of Athanasius, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, still stands: "Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these, for concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'"

___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to http://www.albertmohler.com/. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to http://www.sbts.edu/. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com.

See also the most recent entries on Dr. Mohler's Blog.


source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/

The 'Gospel of Judas'

Interview With Father Thomas Williams, Theology Dean

ROME, APRIL 6, 2006 (Zenit) - The National Geographic Society has announced its intentions to publish an English translation of an ancient text called "The Gospel of Judas" later this month.
The 31-page manuscript, written in Coptic, purportedly surfaced in Geneva in 1983 and has only been translated now.

We asked Legionary Father Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university in Rome, to comment on the relevance of the discovery.

Q: What is the "Gospel of Judas"?

Father Williams: Though the manuscript still must be authenticated, it likely represents a fourth- or fifth-century text, and is a copy of an earlier document produced by a Gnostic sect called the Cainites.
The document paints Judas Iscariot in a positive light, and describes him as obeying a divine ordinance in handing over Jesus to the authorities for the salvation of the world.

It may well be a copy of the "Gospel of Judas" referred to by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his work "Against the Heresies," written around A.D. 180.

Q: If authentic, what challenge would this document pose to traditional Christian belief? Will it "shake Christianity to its foundations" as some press releases have suggested?

Father Williams: Certainly not. The Gnostic gospels, of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se, since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from different religions, including Christianity.

From the moment of their appearance, the Christian community rejected these documents because of their incompatibility with the Christian faith.

The "Gospel of Judas" would be a document of this sort, which could have great historical value, since it contributes to our knowledge of the Gnostic movement, but it poses no direct challenge to Christianity.

Q: Is it true that the Church has tried to cover up this text and other apocryphal texts?

Father Williams: These are myths circulated by Dan Brown and other conspiracy theorists.

You can go to any Catholic bookstore and pick up a copy of the Gnostic gospels. Christians may not believe them to be true, but there is no attempt to hide them.

Q: But doesn't an early document of this sort rival orthodox Christian sources, such as the four canonical Gospels?

Father Williams: Remember that Gnosticism arose in the middle of the second century, and the "Gospel of Judas," if authentic, probably dates back to the mid- to late second century.

To put a historical perspective on things, that would be like you or me writing a text now on the American Civil War and having that text later used as a primary historical source on the war. The text could not have been written by eyewitnesses, the way at least two of the canonical Gospels were.

Q: Why would the leaders of the Gnostic movement have been interested in Judas?

Father Williams: One of the major differences between Gnostic belief and that of Christianity concerns the origins of evil in the universe.

Christians believe that a good God created a good world, and that through the abuse of free will, sin and corruption entered the world and produced disorder and suffering.

The Gnostics blamed God for the evil in the world and claimed that he created the world in a disordered and flawed way. Thus they champion the rehabilitation of Old Testament figures such as Cain, who killed his brother Abel, and Esau, the elder brother of Jacob, who sold his birthright for a plate of pottage.
Judas fits perfectly into the Gnostic agenda of showing that God intends evil for the world.

Q: But wasn't Judas' betrayal a necessary part of God's plan, as this text suggests?

Father Williams: Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world.

In his last published book, Pope John Paul II eloquently reflected on how God continues to bring good out of even the worst evil that man can produce.

That doesn't mean, however, that God intends for us to do evil, or that he intended for Judas to betray Jesus. If it wasn't Judas, it would have been someone else. The authorities had already decided to put Jesus to death, and it was just a matter of time.

Q: What is the Church's position regarding Judas? Is it possible to "rehabilitate" him?

Father Williams: Though the Catholic Church has a canonization process by which it declares certain persons to be in heaven, as saints, it has no such process for declaring people to be condemned.

Historically, many have thought that Judas is probably in hell, because of Jesus' severe indictment of Judas: "It would be better for that man if he had never been born," as he says in Matthew 26:24. But even these words do not offer conclusive evidence regarding his fate.

In his 1994 book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," Pope John Paul II wrote that Jesus' words "do not allude for certain to eternal damnation."

Q: But if anyone deserves hell, wouldn't it be Judas?

Father Williams: Surely many people deserve hell, but we must remember that the mercy of God is infinitely greater than our wickedness.

Peter and Judas committed very similar faults: Peter denied Jesus three times, and Judas handed him over. And yet now Peter is remembered as a saint and Judas simply as the traitor.

The main difference between the two is not the nature or gravity of their sin, but rather their willingness to accept God's mercy. Peter wept for his sins, came back to Jesus, and was pardoned. The Gospel describes Judas as hanging himself in despair.

Q: Why is the "Gospel of Judas" arousing so much interest?

Father Williams: Such theories regarding Judas are certainly not new.

It's enough to remember the 1973 play "Jesus Christ Superstar," where Judas sings, "I have no thought at all about my own reward. I really didn't come here of my own accord," or Taylor Caldwell's 1977 novel "I, Judas."
The enormous economic success of "The Da Vinci Code" has undoubtedly stirred up the pot, and provided financial incentive for theories of this sort.

Michael Baigent, author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," now has a book out called "The Jesus Papers," which recycles the old story that Jesus survived the crucifixion.

And a newly released "scientific" study asserts that meteorological conditions could have been such that Jesus really walked on ice, when the Gospels say he walked on water.

Basically, for those who reject outright the possibility of miracles, any theory, outlandish as it may be, trumps Christian claims.

source: www.zenit.org

Gospel of Judas does not deserve name "gospel"

By Cindy Wooden
4/7/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

ROME – The Gospel of Judas was unimportant to most Christians when it was written hundreds of years ago and it is unimportant today, said a Jesuit scholar, who has convoked a series of ecumenical studies of the historical Jesus.

Jesuit Father Gerald O'Collins, a longtime professor of Christology at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the text, like the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Philip, "does not merit the name 'gospel.'"
The National Geographic Society unveiled the document April 6, posting a copy of it on the society's Web site (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/) and releasing English translations of portions of the text.
"A 'Gospel' is a literary genre – established by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – focusing on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus," Father O'Collins said.

While including events supposedly related to the life of Jesus, the Gospel of Judas and the others really are texts "attempting to bolster the importance" of the personalities they are named after, not of Jesus, the priest said.

"They are not summaries of the good news," he said.

The texts come from the gnostic tradition, a religious-philosophical current popular in the second, third and fourth centuries. The gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge unavailable to the vast majority of people and focused so strongly on the spiritual and intellectual that they despised material creation, including the human body.

In the year 180, St. Irenaeus condemned the gnostics, mentioning particularly a Gospel of Judas.
Father O'Collins said the most important thing about the text released in early April is that "it shows just how right Irenaeus was in saying the gnostics were against mainstream Christianity and Judaism, they were against our God."

Not a Christian but Gnostic document

The controversial "Gospel of Judas" is not a Christian but a Gnostic document. The document has been pronounced before as heretical, it was rejected before why should it affect our faith now?

Below is a summary about Gnosticism:


GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term “myth” should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true”, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.

In the following summary, we will attempt to encapsulate in prose what the Gnostic myths express in their distinctively poetic and imaginative language.

The Cosmos
All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

Once the initial shock of the “unusual” or “blasphemous” nature of the Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off, one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations. To appreciate it fully, however, a familiarity with the Gnostic conception of the Godhead is required, both in its original essence as the True God and in its debased manifestation as the false or creator God.

Deity
The Gnostic God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism.
In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.
The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness (Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully. The Fullness stands in contrast to our existential state, which in comparison may be called emptiness.

One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia (“Wisdom”) is of great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God. Since he took the already existing divine essence and fashioned it into various forms, he is also called the Demiurgos or “half-maker” There is an authentic half, a true deific component within creation, but it is not recognized by the half-maker and by his cosmic minions, the Archons or “rulers”.

The Human Being
Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the “divine spark”. The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of “dualist”.

Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us to remain attached to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to these lower cosmic rulers. Death releases the divine spark from its lowly prison, but if there has not been a substantial work of Gnosis undertaken by the soul prior to death, it becomes likely that the divine spark will be hurled back into, and then re-embodied within, the pangs and slavery of the physical world.

Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who recognize only the physical reality. Others live largely in their psyche (psychics). Such people usually mistake the Demiurge for the True God and have little or no awareness of the spiritual world beyond matter and mind.

In the course of history, humans progress from materialistic sensate slavery, by way of ethical religiosity, to spiritual freedom and liberating Gnosis. As the scholar G. Quispel wrote: “The world-spirit in exile must go through the Inferno of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the spiritual Paradise.” This kind of evolution of consciousness was envisioned by the Gnostics, long before the concept of evolution was known.

Salvation
Evolutionary forces alone are insufficient, however, to bring about spiritual freedom. Humans are caught in a predicament consisting of physical existence combined with ignorance of their true origins, their essential nature and their ultimate destiny. To be liberated from this predicament, human beings require help, although they must also contribute their own efforts.

From earliest times Messengers of the Light have come forth from the True God in order to assist humans in their quest for Gnosis. Only a few of these salvific figures are mentioned in Gnostic scripture; some of the most important are Seth (the third Son of Adam), Jesus, and the Prophet Mani. The majority of Gnostics always looked to Jesus as the principal savior figure (the Soter).

Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that Christ has performed His work of salvation.

The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors.
One needs also remember that knowledge of our true nature -- as well as other associated realizations -- are withheld from us by our very condition of earthly existence. The True God of transcendence is unknown in this world, in fact He is often called the Unknown Father. It is thus obvious that revelation from on High is needed to bring about salvation. The indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the saving knowledge that comes “from without”.

Conduct
If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with the spiritual development of the individual.

As noted in the discussion above, “hyletic materialists” usually have little interest in morality, while “psychic disciplinarians” often grant to it a great importance. In contrast, “Pneumatic spiritual” persons are generally more concerned with other, higher matters. Different historical periods also require variant attitudes regarding human conduct. Thus both the Manichaean and Cathar Gnostic movements, which functioned in times where purity of conduct was regarded as an issue of high import, responded in kind. The present period of Western culture perhaps resembles in more ways that of second and third century Alexandria. It seems therefore appropriate that Gnostics in our age adopt the attitudes of classical Alexandrian Gnosticism, wherein matters of conduct were largely left to the insight of the individual.

Gnosticism embraces numerous general attitudes toward life: it encourages non-attachment and non-conformity to the world, a “being in the world, but not of the world”; a lack of egotism; and a respect for the freedom and dignity of other beings. Nonetheless, it appertains to the intuition and wisdom of every individual “Gnostic” to distill from these principles individual guidelines for their personal application.

Destiny
When Confucius was asked about death, he replied: “Why do you ask me about death when you do not know how to live?” This answer might easily have been given by a Gnostic. To a similar question posed in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the ineffable, divine reality from whence they have originated, and whither they will return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are still embodied on earth.

Death does not automatically bring about liberation from bondage in the realms of the Demiurge. Those who have not attained to a liberating Gnosis while they were in embodiment may become trapped in existence once more. It is quite likely that this might occur by way of the cycle of rebirths. Gnosticism does not emphasize the doctrine of reincarnation prominently, but it is implicitly understood in most Gnostic teachings that those who have not made effective contact with their transcendental origins while they were in embodiment would have to return into the sorrowful condition of earthly life.

In regard to salvation, or the fate of the spirit and soul after death, one needs to be aware that help is available. Valentinus, the greatest of Gnostic teachers, taught that Christ and Sophia await the spiritual man -- the pneumatic Gnostic -- at the entrance of the Pleroma, and help him to enter the bridechamber of final reunion. Ptolemaeus, disciple of Valentinus, taught that even those not of pneumatic status, the psychics, could be redeemed and live in a heavenworld at the entrance of the Pleroma. In the fullness of time, every spiritual being will receive Gnosis and will be united with its higher Self -- the angelic Twin -- thus becoming qualified to enter the Pleroma. None of this is possible, however, without earnest striving for Gnosis.

Gnosis and Psyche: The Depth Psychological Connection
Throughout the twentieth Century the new scientific discipline of depth psychology has gained much prominence. Among the depth psychologists who have shown a pronounced and informed interest in Gnosticism, a place of signal distinction belongs to C. G. Jung. Jung was instrumental in calling attention to the Nag Hammadi library of Gnostic writings in the 1950's because he perceived the outstanding psychological relevance of Gnostic insights.

The noted scholar of Gnosticism, G. Filoramo, wrote: "Jung's reflections had long been immersed in the thought of the ancient Gnostics to such an extent that he considered them the virtual discoverers of 'depth psychology' . . . ancient Gnosis, albeit in its form of universal religion, in a certain sense prefigured, and at the same time helped to clarify, the nature of Jungian spiritual therapy." In the light of such recognitions one may ask: "Is Gnosticism a religion or a psychology?" The answer is that it may very-well be both. Most mythologems found in Gnostic scriptures possess psychological relevance and applicability. For instance the blind and arrogant creator-demiurge bears a close resemblance to the alienated human ego that has lost contact with the ontological Self. Also, the myth of Sophia resembles closely the story of the human psyche that loses its connection with the collective unconscious and needs to be rescued by the Self. Analogies of this sort exist in great profusion.

Many esoteric teachings have proclaimed, "As it is above, so it is below." Our psychological nature (the microcosm) mirrors metaphysical nature (the macrocosm), thus Gnosticism may possess both a psychological and a religious authenticity. Gnostic psychology and Gnostic religion need not be exclusive of one another but may complement each other within an implicit order of wholeness. Gnostics have always held that divinity is immanent within the human spirit, although it is not limited to it. The convergence of Gnostic religious teaching with psychological insight is thus quite understandable in terms of time-honored Gnostic principles.

Conclusion
Some writers make a distinction between “Gnosis” and “Gnosticism”. Such distinctions are both helpful and misleading. Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is the world-view based on the experience of Gnosis. For this reason, in languages other than English, the word Gnosis is often used to denote both the experience and the world view (die Gnosis in German, la Gnose in French).

In a sense, there is no Gnosis without Gnosticism, for the experience of Gnosis inevitably calls forth a world view wherein it finds its place. The Gnostic world view is experiential, it is based on a certain kind of spiritual experience of Gnosis. Therefore, it will not do to omit, or to dilute, various parts of the Gnostic world view, for were one to do this, the world view would no longer conform to experience.

Theology has been called an intellectual wrapping around the spiritual kernel of a religion. If this is true, then it is also true that most religions are being strangled and stifled by their wrappings. Gnosticism does not run this danger, because its world view is stated in myth rather than in theology. Myths, including the Gnostic myths, may be interpreted in diverse ways. Transcendence, numinosity, as well as psychological archetypes along with other elements, play a role in such interpretation. Still, such mythic statements tell of profound truths that will not be denied.

Gnosticism can bring us such truths with a high authority, for it speaks with the voice of the highest part of the human -- the spirit. Of this spirit, it has been said, “it bloweth where it listeth”. This then is the reason why the Gnostic world view could not be extirpated in spite of many centuries of persecution.

The Gnostic world view has always been timely, for it always responded best to the “knowledge of the heart” that is true Gnosis. Yet today, its timeliness is increasing, for the end of the second millennium has seen the radical deterioration of many ideologies which evaded the great questions and answers addressed by Gnosticism. The clarity, frankness, and authenticity of the Gnostic answer to the questions of the human predicament cannot fail to impress and (in time) to convince. If your reactions to this summary have been of a similarly positive order, then perhaps you are a Gnostic yourself!

+ Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop)

Found 'Gospel of Judas' paints alternate portrait of Jesus' betrayer

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A gnostic writing long thought to have been lost, the Gospel of Judas, was put on display April 6 at the National Geographic Society in Washington. The document, a third-century Coptic translation of what had originally been written in Greek before 180 A.D., paints Judas in a more sympathetic light than his well-known role as Jesus' betrayer in the canonical Gospels. In it, Jesus said Judas would "exceed all" of the other disciples, "for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me" -- a reference to Judas' impending betrayal of Jesus. It is also an allusion to gnostic belief that held the spirit in higher esteem than the body, and that, through the liberation of Jesus' body, his spirit would be freed. The Gospel of Judas was mentioned in a book condemning heresies that was written by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, France, in 180 A.D. The find was touted at an April 6 press conference as one of the three most significant discoveries of sacred writings of the past century, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, thousands of fragments of biblical and early Jewish documents discovered between 1947 and 1956, and the Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of 50 texts found in Egypt in 1945.

source: http://www.americancatholic.org/

HABEMVS PAPAM

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, officially in Latin Benedictus XVI, born Joseph Alois Ratzinger (Latin: Iosephus Ratzinger) (April 16, 1927), was elected Pope of the Catholic Church on April 19, 2005. As such, he is Bishop of Rome, Sovereign of the Vatican City State and head of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Holy See. He will be formally installed as pontiff during the Mass of Papal Installation on April 24, 2005.

At 78 years old, he is the oldest pope elected since Pope Clement XII in 1730, and is the first pope of German ancestry since Adrian VI (1522–1523) who was born to German parents in what is now the Netherlands, but which was then a province of Germany. Benedict XVI is the 8th German pope in history; the first was Gregory V. The last Benedict, Benedict XV, served as pontiff from 1914 to 1922 and thus reigned during World War I.
He was appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope John Paul II in 1981, made a Cardinal Bishop of the episcopal see of Velletri-Segni in 1993, and was elected Dean of the College of Cardinals in 2002, becoming titular bishop of Ostia. He was already one of the most influential men in the Vatican and a close associate of the late John Paul II before he became pope. He also presided over the funeral of John Paul II and the Conclave in 2005 which elected him. During the most recent sede vacante, he was the highest-ranking official in the Catholic Church.

Some see Benedict as a traditionalist, others as merely orthodox, but almost all observers agree that he is a staunch defender of Catholic doctrine. He is a critic of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion and has spoken about the unique role of the Catholic Church in salvation and has called all other Christian churches and ecclesial communities deficient. As a Cardinal, he wrote Truth and Tolerance, a book in which he denounces the use of tolerance as an excuse to distort the truth. Benedict also participated as a priest in the Second Vatican Council and has continued to defend the council, including Nostra Aetate, the document on respect of other religions and the declaration of the right to religious freedom. He was viewed during the time of the council as a liberal. As the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict most clearly spelled out the Catholic Church's position on other religions in the document Dominus Iesus which also talks about the proper way to engage in ecumenical dialogue.

On his first appearance at the balcony of Saint Peter's Basilica after becoming pope, he was announced with the words:

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum;
habemus Papam:
Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum Josephum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger
qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedictum XVI

("I announce to you great joy:
We have a Pope!
The most Eminent and Reverend Lord, the Lord Joseph, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church Ratzinger,
who takes to himself the name of Benedict the sixteenth.")



Urbi et Orbi Blessing

Dear brothers and sisters, after our great Pope, John Paul II, the Cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard. I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in your prayers.

In the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help, we go ahead, sure that God will help. And Mary, his most beloved Mother, stands on our side.

Thank you.

Prophecy fulfilled!

We have posted before the prophecies of St. Malachy (http://sfxcs.blogspot.com/2005/04/saints-prophecy-only-two-popes-remain.html) after the death of Pople John Paull II.

"The 111th prophecy is "Gloria Olivae" (The Glory of the Olive). The meaning of the olive is unclear. The Order of Saint Benedict has claimed that this pope will come from its ranks and Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its final fight against evil."

I thought that this prophecy was farfetched because there was only one Benedictine cardinal and he was not even qualified to vote because he is now over 80 years old.

I was surprised when I watched the unfolding of events at CNN, I heard Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez said "... Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedictum XVI." The election of Cardinal Ratzinger did not come to me as a surprise, but I almost fell on my chair when I heard Cardinal Estevez said that Cardinal Ratzinger will now be known as Benedict XVI.

The new pope did not come from the order of St. Benedict but he chose to be named after the founder of the order of the Olivetans. Was the prophecy fulfilled? What do you think?

Why are Catholic priests not allowed to marry?

by Matthew Pinto
(http://www.catholiceducation.org/)

Although the early Church allowed married clergy, the Church later came to see celibacy as a better example of the norm and model of Jesus’ priesthood.

In referring to celibacy, St. Paul says: "Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God . . .Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do" (1 Cor. 7:7-8). He goes on to say: "An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided" (1 Cor. 7:32-34).

Jesus said: "And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life" (Mt. 19:29).

Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. This means that the Church could change the rule. In fact, there are a few instances when the Church has allowed married clergy, such as with some Eastern rite clergy and in the case of some Protestant ministers who converted to the Faith. These, however, are the exception.

It is unlikely that the Church will change this teaching at all, or any time soon, because of the many positive and practical benefits of celibacy. Here are 10 reasons why a celibate clergy makes good sense:

1) It leaves the priest free to more fully commit his life to the service of the Lord and the laity.

2) The Church has found it is better to keep priests moving from parish to parish every few years, perhaps for a few reasons, including the desire to prevent a cult of personality from building around a particular priest. This situation can put too much focus on the man rather than on the Gospel message. So, the Church prudently moves priests around. Can you imagine how much stress it would cause a priest to have to move his wife and family each time he is assigned to a new parish? Having a celibate priesthood also enables the bishop the full flexibility he needs to move priests around.

3) To be able to lay his life down for his flock. Because a celibate priest does not have the obligation of a wife and children, he can give of himself more easily, including his own life, if necessary. For example, Blessed Damien de Veuster of Belgium was able to work with lepers on the island of Molokai, Hawaii, because of the freedom he had in being a celibate minister. This work eventually led to his contracting and dying from leprosy.

4) It is a sign of contradiction and a great Christian witness to our society, which is flooded with sexually permissive messages. Celibacy surely gains the Catholic clergy a hidden respect from many people.

5) It gives the priest greater credibility when he asks the laity to make sacrifices, because the laity knows that celibacy involves sacrifice.

6) It helps the priest master his passions amd also gives him more time for prayer, which is the lifeblood of any ministry.

7) It enables a priest to be more objective when counseling married couples. Because he is not married, he is not going to project any personal marriage problems or biases onto the the couple he is counseling.

8) In many cases it enables the priest to be a "spiritual father" to more people than he would as a married man (1 Cor. 4:15).

9) It allows the Church to put the hundreds of millions of dollars it saves in priestly salaries to the evangelization and charitable assistance of a needy world. Although priests do receive salaries, they are much lower than they would have to be if they had families to support.

10) It’s a foreshadowing that there will be no marriage in heaven (Mt. 22:30).

No one is required to live a permanently celibate life (Mt. 19:12). The Church says that people are free to marry. In fact, the Church glorifies the married state. Only if one wants to become a priest, brother, or religious sister does he or she have to live a celibate life. The religious life, and the requirements that come with it, do not have to be chosen by anyone. However, when it is chosen, it needs to be followed in the manner our Lord and His Church requires.

Sure, celibacy can be difficult, especially in this sexually permissive age. But if a priest has good seminary formation that strongly supports celibacy and if he stays close to our Lord in prayer, he will be able to turn this sacrifice into a wonderful aid to his work.

Final Exam in Theology

After years of being away from the seminary, can you still answer the following questions?

1. Summarize Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae in three succinct sentences. You may use your Bible.

2. St. Martin of Tours, Pope Clement VII and Karl Barth were not contemporaries. Had they known each other, how might the history of the Reformation have turned out differently?

3. Define a moral system that satisfies Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, and the entire population of Ancient Rome, ca. 3 BCE.

4. Memorize the Bible. Recite it in tongues.

5. Imagine you have the stigmata. Would it affect your productivity at work? Would you still be admitted into fine restaurants? Would it be covered by your medical insurance, or should it constitute a pre-existent condition?

6. What would it mean to be eternal, co-eternal, and non-existent all at once?

7. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo decide to rob a bank. The note to the teller is 1,200 pages long, not counting footnotes, complete with a promise of damnation if the teller does not accept immediate Baptism. In the middle of the heist, they engage in an extended debate as to whether or not the money really exists.
Are they committing a mortal or a venial sin?

8. Speculate on what the current status of salvation history might have been if Abraham had just stayed in Ur.

What happens when the Pope dies?

The pope is dead. When these urgent words are wired throughout the world, when every news agency worldwide interrupts programming with the announcement of these four words, a sense of wonderment and curiosity about papal Rome takes hold of people everywhere. Our eyes turn to the Vatican for a peek into the ancient ceremonies soon to be relived, the ceremonies surrounding the death and burial of the pope: the calling of the Conclave of Cardinal-Electors and the installation of the successor to the See of Peter. Tu es Petrus! From the burial to the election, the Church is without Peter. The Holy Spirit guides her, through the Sacred College. It is in these moments, the Sede Vacante, that the true significance of the role of the cardinal in the Church is most evident. What may have been viewed as an honorific or gift of gratitude for years of service to the Church is quickly reduced, theologically, to the real foundation of their existence.

The cardinals must open themselves to the grace of the Holy Spirit, as never before in their priestly lives, for it is the Spirit through them, his agents, who elevates to the throne of the Vicar of Christ, the one and only candidate whom Christ wishes to guide His Church on Earth.

The pope is dead. Very little has changed throughout history when these words are spoken. Certainly the modern advancements of each new age contribute their own mystique to the mysteries surrounding the death of a pope. In our own age, modern medicine made it possible to alert the world that the end was near for Paul VI. As the use of medicine became more accurate, the actual certainty of the death of the pope was confirmed. The last hours of recent popes have been made more restful than those of their predecessors because of better medical care. Despite all these modern appointments, death for a pope incorporates a prescribed formula of ceremony that is hundreds of years old and that is not easily laid aside, regardless of advancements of science.

Whereas the lovable John Paul I, Albino Luciano, died so suddenly, which sent the imagination of the world's writers astray, it is best to leave him aside and study his predecessor, Paul VI, still familiar to most of us. Paul died at Castel Gandolfo [the papal summer residence near Rome] in the late evening of August 6, 1978. His mentor, Pius XII, likewise died there. Paul's death was not unexpected. The Papal Household had made all the necessary preparations, and the Cardinal-Secretary of State, the Prefect of the Papal Household, and other senior officials of his court were present at his bedside when he entered eternity. The first news of his death came when pilgrims standing vigil outside the papal villa witnessed the age-old custom of closure. The Swiss Guard barred the entrance to the courtyard by hanging a heavy black chain across the doorway. Within minutes, the news was flashed to every news service. Vatican Radio, which broadcasts worldwide, interrupted its normal programming with the tearful annou cement of the passing of the pope.

At the Vatican basilica, as the bell of the Arco delle Campani tolled the death knell, and as bells all over the city peeled in sorrow at the news of the pope's death, all officials of the Holy See lost their power and position. The Church, for all intents and purpose, came to a grinding halt. The See of Peter was empty. Cardinals had to be notified. Officially, the Camerlengo of the Church-the cardinal who had been nominated by the pope, prior to his death, to serve the Church during the Sede Vacante, as administrator rather than as head-assumed his temporary position over the Church.

The Camerlengo under Paul VI, the Frenchman Jean Cardinal Villot, was also the Secretary of State. His immediate tasks were to verify the death of the pope, to announce it to all the cardinals and summon them to Rome for the coming conclave, to notify the diplomatic missions accredited to the Holy See, and to prepare the funeral rites of the deceased pontiff. The funeral of Paul VI was the first of its kind in the history of the Church, as much of the ceremony and pageantry attached to this rite was abolished during his pontificate. Paul was clear in his wishes: He wanted to be buried in simplicity. The Camerlengo's role was to honor those wishes yet to remember that it was the pope, not a simple priest, that he was burying.

The body was vested in the white simar of the pope, the white alb, cincture, and amice. The modern pectoral cross, which Paul VI favored, was hung over his chest, and a red-and-gold chasuble for burial, which is the sole privilege of the popes, was placed on the body. On his head was placed the golden mitre, again the privilege of the popes. [All other prelates are buried in the white mitre.] Around his neck was the pallium, symbolizing his universal authority. His body was laid in state in the Hall of the Swiss Guard at Castel Gandolfo, where the villagers and pilgrims could come to pay their respects. The body was guarded through the night by the Swiss Guard and by members of the Papal Household who had gathered to pray. Paul's remains were laid in a simple wooden box of a beggar at his own request. In the morning, three Franciscans came to chant the Office of the Dead before the body began the ceremonial transfer to Rome. Nine million people around the world watched the procession as it made its way through the Castelli district outside Rome. "Seven motorcycle police led the procession of cars as it filed through the villa's Gate of the Moor. About thirty cars bearing those dearest to the Pope followed the hearse as it traveled about twenty-five miles an hour along the Via Appia Nuova." Its first stop was not St. Peter's but St. John Lateran, the basilica of the Bishop of Rome. The cardinal-vicar of Rome, who, along with the members of the Apostolic Penitentiary and the nuncios throughout the world, were the only officials remaining in power during the Sede Vacante, as decreed by canon law.

The vicar for Rome prayed the Office of the Dead while the body remained inside the hearse. With the office complete and a final farewell with a blessing of holy water given, the procession continued on to St. Peter's.
As the hearse entered the square, the Swiss Guard and Italian honor guard snapped into a salute. "Forty Cardinals dressed in bright red and carrying lighted candles put the coffin at the steps of the world's largest Church. Accompanied by Cardinals, by lines of white surpliced priests, by black-robed Third Order Franciscan confessors and by his family, Pope Paul's body was carried into St. Peter's ."

In the days immediately following the death of Paul VI, many hectic moments caused frustration inside the Vatican. One such event was the fact that no deacon could be found in the city of Rome. The officials of the Prefecture of the Papal Household called the national colleges and seminaries in Rome. It was the height of summer and all those who could get away, had done so. No deacon could be found. Finally, with hands thrown into the air, someone of the prefecture staff asked the Pontifical North American College to appoint one of the newly ordained priests, still present in Rome, to serve as a deacon for the solemn liturgy of the reception of the deceased into the basilica. For this young priest [Fr Stephen DiGiovanni], it was the honor of a lifetime.

The Novendiales could thus begin. For nine days, masses were offered in St. Peter's and the basilicas and churches of Rome for the deceased. The body was removed from the simple cypress coffin and once again placed on view at the Confession of St. Peter. Vatican Radio estimated that 10,000 persons an hour passed the bier of the deceased pope to pay their respects.

Whereas twenty-four ten-foot candles surrounded the bier of his predecessors, Paul requested only one Paschal candle. The contrast was notable. Whereas all the funerals of his predecessors had been held inside the basilica for a much smaller number, Paul wished his funeral to be held outdoors so that as many persons who wished to attend, could. The ceremony was carried on live television worldwide to an estimated home audience of sixty million people.

After the solemn obsequies, as prescribed by the rite of burial, had concluded, Paul was laid inside the basilica, alongside his predecessors, in a crypt he had chosen for himself. He wished to be buried in the earth rather than in a sarcophagus. His remains were lowered into a vault below the floor of the crypt. A simple, elegant marble marker designates the place where he now rests.

Paul VI made many changes in the Church, changes that directly affected the faithful and that also affected the governing body of the Church as well as the Sacred College. He did not institute changes that would not affect himself and his successors. Pope John Paul I, whose brief pontificate touched the hearts of all the world, likewise hoped for the simplicity of Paul VI's death and burial. The precedence that was set by these two pontificates is impossible to overlook, yet unlikely to be altered in the near future. This more simplified and dignified burial of the Roman Pontiff has probably taken its place as the proper formula for consigning dead popes to history and their souls to eternity. To offer a historical comparison, until 1978, all pontiffs were subject in death to a series of rituals and ceremonies reminiscent of the early Renaissance, where they had taken root.

The pope is dead. These words reverberated icily throughout the Italian peninsula in past pontificates. The popes were powerful, more for their temporal authority than for their spiritual authority. The court that surrounded them was isolated, and the death of the pope set into motion a court mechanism unrivaled in royal Europe.

Other men die in darkness, in confusion, and amid tears; the Pope, alone in the world, dies in ceremony Next to the room where he is dying the high dignitaries of the official family form a guard of honor. Around his bed are grouped the resident Cardinals of Rome, standing among them, the Cardinal-Grand Penitentiary, in accordance with his duties, aids the dying Pope.

"In past ages, a dying pope was expected to preach his final assessment of his Church and, if strong enough in his last hours to do so, to signify whom he thinks worthy to succeed him on the chair of Peter. This advice, although always sought, was seldom accepted. The entire court of the papacy gathered to watch the pope die. Cardinals quickly made their way from the surrounding cities; others were hastily notified in hopes that they, too, could reach Rome prior to the death of the pope and the formal entrance into conclave.

After the pope drew his last breath, a doctor was called forth to pronounce the death; in some pontificates, no more than a mirror was used to detect breath. To be certain of death, the Church had its own formula: The Cardinal-Camerlengo of the Church would come forward. All others would drop back behind him while he removed from a small red leather bag a small silver mallet engraved with the arms of the deceased. Three times the Camerlengo would gently tap the forehead of the deceased pope as if to say, "Get up!" With each tap, he would call out, in the pope's native tongue, the name given to him at baptism, the name his mother whispered to him as a child. It was thought that no man could remain asleep at the sound of his baptismal or childhood name. Assured of death, the Camerlengo would announce, "The Pope is dead." From that moment, the reverent silence of the Vatican vanished as a flurry of activity began in preparation for the burial and coming conclave.

The body was dressed in state with the red and gold chasuble and the fanon of white silk and gold thread. In former times, the body was always carried to the small Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament on the right side of the basilica, midway up the great nave. He was laid in state for two days, for without embalming it was not possible to view the body any longer. At the appointed time, the body was carried in great solemnity to the High Altar for the Mass of the Dead. "Immediately after the general absolution, the body was placed in triple coffins; cypress, lead, and elm, at the side of which stand the chief priest of the Basilica and the Cardinal Camerlengo. Two veils of silk were placed over the face and hands of the pontiff. A great clanking re-echoed from chapel to chapel; it was caused by the taps of the coffin which was being sealed, and crossed with violet ribbons.

Even to this day, three coffins are used. The first, made of cypress, like Paul VI's, is to signify that even the popes are human and are buried like common men. The second, of lead, bears the name of the pontiff, the dates of his pontificate, and copies of the documents of profound importance issued under his seal. The broken seal of office is placed within the lead coffin by the Camerlengo prior to final closure. Finally, the third coffin, made of elm, the most precious of local woods available in Rome, is used to signify the great dignity of the man being laid to his rest. Thanks to this ancient custom, many early documents of the Church have been conserved.Once the body is sealed within its final coffin, with only the deceased pontiff's family and immediate household present to attend him, he is lowered into the crypt below St. Peter's, through the Confession of St. Peter, where the sanpietrini place the heavy cargo on a wagon, to be wheeled to the place the pontiff chose himself for his final resting place. Soon after, a sarcophagus would be fashioned by one of the great artists of the era, marking the grave site for all time.

The pope's vicar for Vatican City, at one time also known as the papal sacristan, has the honor of remaining behind all the others to recite the Office of the Dead and to give one last final blessing to the deceased's remains. At that moment, those persons holding titles or honors bestowed for the duration of the pope's lifetime lose them, returning, at least for a time, to their former status, hoping that the successor to the See of Peter will rename them to their posts. Mourning also ended officially, as the Vatican prepared for the Novendiales and the coming conclave.

[This is an extract from the book "The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman Catholic Church" by James-Charles Noonan, Jr. (1996) pp.24-28.]

The Pope's Three Coffins

All the news reports that talk about the Pope's three coffins said that this is done to conserve and protect the remains of the Pope. These reports are misleading because they did not talk about the real meaning of the ancient tradition of burying the pope using cypress, lead and elm coffins.

The first, made of cypress is to signify that even the popes are human and are buried like common men. The second, of lead, bears the name of the pontiff, the dates of his pontificate, and copies of the documents of profound importance issued under his seal. The broken seal of office is placed within the lead coffin by the Camerlengo prior to final closure. Finally, the third coffin, made of elm, the most precious of local woods available in Rome, is used to signify the great dignity of the man being laid to his rest.

Thanks to this ancient custom, many early documents of the Church have been conserved.

Death and Election of the Pope

By Daniel J. Wathen
Seminarian of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings

The Sede Vacante period, or the Vacant See, is the term used to denote the period within the Catholic Church from the death of a pontiff to the election of another successor of Saint Peter. It is a time when the eyes of the world focus on the smallest sovereign nation in the world—the Vatican City State—and watch with wonder and awe at what is taking place.

The announcement of the death of Pope John Paul II has brought an end for many of us the only pontificate that we have known in our lifetime, a pontificate which has lasted more than twenty-six years. The See of Saint Peter—the Holy See—though, may not lie vacant forever. A shepherd must be selected to lead the Church that that Christ founded on earth.

With the passing of the Holy Father, the Camerlengo (Eduardo Cardinal Martinez Somalo, Spain) became the single most important person in the Vatican. After entering the room where the Holy Father expired, the Camerlengo called out the baptismal name of the Pope, which he has not been called by since his election. With no answer to the third calling, the Camerlengo announced “Vere Johannes Paulus II mortuus est” (Truly Pope John Paul II is dead), a fact that was officially certified by the notaries, the Master of Ceremonies and by three physicians.

Once the Pope’s body was taken from the Papal bedroom, the Camerlengo sealed it along with the papal study so that no one may enter them. After this, he informed the Vicar General of Rome (Camillo Cardinal Ruini, Italy) of the death of the Pope, who in turn ordered all the church bells of Rome to announce the death to the people of Rome. With the announcement having been made, Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic constitution concerning the Sede Vacante period, calls upon all of the faithful from around the world to pray in a special way for the Church and for a speedy election.

While the world was learning of the Pope’s death, the Penitentiaries—the black robed Conventual Franciscans that hear confessions in every language at the Basilica of Saint Peter—prepared the Pope’s body for viewing and laid him in state in the Sistine Chapel. The day after the Pope’s death, furthermore, began a period of nine days of mourning called the Novemdial. While the Papal Funeral usually takes place within three days, until the Pope is buried, it is historically a time period noted, at least ever since the year 607, by a lack of any talk of succession by the cardinals.

On the day following the death of the Pope, the chapter of clergy of the Basilica appeared in the Sistine Chapel and took procession of the body from the Penitentiaries. The chapter of clergy then took the body in procession to the Most Holy Sacrament Chapel in the Basilica of Saint Peter where the Pope was laid in state so that the people of Rome and visitors from around the world may pay their respects.

When the Papal Funeral takes place, the Pope will eventually be placed in three coffins by three cardinals that were created by the late Pope. The first is of cypress wood and before it is sealed the first living cardinal created by the Pope will place a red ermine blanket over the Pope’s body. Medallions of precious medals bearing the image of the Pope and corresponding in number to the number of years that the Pontiff has reined will also be placed in the coffin. The Pope is then placed in the second coffin made of lead, which has the Pope’s coat of arms on it, along with a copy of the certificate of death. He is finally placed in a coffin of elm wood. The three coffins are primarily to conserve and protect.

The Cardinals

Upon receiving word of the Holy Father’s death, the cardinals began immediately to make preparations to journey to the Eternal City to compose and to take part in the General Congregation, which mainly plans and oversees the Papal Funeral and makes sure that the necessary preparations are being made for the conclave. Each of the cardinals carries a title that comes from the Latin word “cardo” meaning “hinge.” And, it is upon them that the weight of the Church temporarily rests during the Sede Vacante. Those cardinals over the age of eighty, though, no longer participate or vote in the conclave, but they are encouraged nonetheless to assist the Church by attending the General Congregation as a member.

According to the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, the cardinals must wait fifteen days for those cardinals who have not yet arrived and may delay the start of the conclave up to twenty days after the death of the Pope. This lengthened delay originally set at ten to fifteen or possibly eighteen days was made by Pope Pius XI in 1922 at the suggestion of Cardinal O’Connell, Archbishop of Boston.

The cardinals will gather in the morning on the day that the eighty-third conclave is to begin to celebrate the Mass of the Holy Spirit, where they will call upon God to guide them in choosing the next pontiff. Those who may enter the conclave are those cardinals under the age of eighty the day of the Pope’s death, along with a small and select group of others such as sacristans, the Master of Pontifical Ceremonies, confessors, two doctors, etc. The conclave will be held inside the Vatican, which has been the case ever since the conclave of 1800 and which today is mandated by Pope John Paul II’s apostolic constitution.

The cardinals are the only ones typically considered as “papabili,” or able to be elected as the next pontiff. In fact, there has been no pope elected that was not first a cardinal since Pope Urban VI in 1378. Technically, though, any baptized male may be elected with the acknowledgement that he must first be ordained a bishop. The last layman elected pontiff was Pope Celestine V in 1294.

The Conclave

The atmosphere of the coming conclave will undoubtedly have an air of uncertainty. As the Romans are fond of saying “He who enters the conclave a Pope shall leave it a cardinal.” The fact that Pope John Paul I broke a three hundred and eleven year tradition—a tradition which began a long time before the writing of our own Declaration of Independence—which said that the newly elected popes would alternately have an “I” or an “R” in his name. And, due to the fact that Pope John Paul II was the first non-Italian pontiff in four hundred and fifty-six years, almost anything could happen in the upcoming conclave.

In Pope John Paul II’s apostolic constitution, it was declared that the only means of electing the next pontiff is by secret ballot, thus removing the possibilities of election by acclamation and by compromise. It specifically states too that the election should take place in the Sistine Chapel.

When the cardinals enter into the Sistine Chapel and the Camerlengo utters the words “extra omnes,” the eighty-second conclave will begin at the sound of the locking doors. In the upcoming conclave there will be a total of ten American cardinal electors. Importantly, though, it must be stated that although the cardinals know the views of their respective communities, the cardinals represent the universal Church.

The Voting

Currently the means of electing the next pontiff is by secret ballot, requiring with a two-thirds vote plus one for a successful election to take place—or if the electors are evenly divisible by three, then simply a two-thirds vote. If there is time, the first ballot will be cast on the evening of the day that the conclave begins. From then on it will be two ballots twice a day with a break every three days for a brief spiritual exhortation to be given respectively by the senior Cardinal Deacon, the senior Cardinal Bishop and the senior Cardinal Priest. The privilege, importantly, is determined not by age, but by when each was elevated to the Sacred College of Cardinals. No conclave, however, has gone longer than five days since 1831. Moreover, to help assure a relatively speedy election, Pope John Paul II has declared that after thirty-three unsuccessful ballots the voting turns to a simple majority.

In the election process, there are three phases: 1) Pre-Scrutiny, 2) Scrutiny and 3) Post-Scrutiny. In phase one a drawing takes place whereby the junior Cardinal Deacon draws a total of nine names—three names to fill each of the positions of Scrutineers, Infirmarii and Revisors. The ballot, which is rectangular and has the words “Eligo in Summum Pontificem” (I elect as Supreme Pontiff) is also distributed.

In phase two the cardinals individually approach the altar and say “I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected.” They then place their folded ballot on a large patton and then turn it over so that the ballot falls into what looks like a large chalice. If the elector cannot walk to the altar, the Scrutineers will go to the elector and take his ballot to the altar. If a cardinal is sick and confined to his room, the Infirmarii will go to gather their ballots in a separate locked box. Upon their return the Scrutineers will count to make sure the number of ballots adds up to the number of infirm and will finally place them one by one on the patton and into the receptacle.

When all of the votes are gathered the first Scrutineer draws out a ballot and unfolds it. He looks at the name and hands it to the second Scruntineer who also notes the name while the third reads the name aloud and pierces the word “Eligo” with a needle and thread.

The third phase finds the Scrutineers tallying all of the votes to see if anyone has received the necessary number of votes to be elected. The Revisors will check the work of the Scrutineers to make sure that everything was added correctly. If no one was elected, then a second vote is immediately taken and both sets of ballots are burned together. If a valid election has taken place, the Camerlengo will create a document of the vote, which is approved by the three Scrutineers.

The Acceptance of Election and a New Name

Upon accepting election, the elected immediately becomes the pope, as long as he is an ordained a bishop. The selection of a name upon acceptance of one’s election is a tradition that is rooted in Jesus giving the name Peter to Simon. It has only been since 1009, though, that this tradition solidified, with the exceptions of Popes Adrian VI (1522-1523) and Marcellus II (1555) who kept their baptismal names. In the selection of a new name popes usually have an interesting explanation for their choice. Some examples of this are: Pope Clement XI who took Clement because it was the name of the saint of the day; Benedict XIV was a Dominican who took the name that the last Dominican selected, Benedict XI; Pius VII took the name of his predecessor; John XXIII took his name from his father’s name, the name of the parish where he was baptized and from Rome’s cathedral, while Pope John Paul I, for the first time in history, combined the name’s of his two predecessors.

The Announcement

A successful election will be announced by the appearance of white smoke from the small chimney pipe coming out of the Sistine Chapel. As word spreads more people will gather in Saint Peter’s Square. There they will await the senior Cardinal Deacon’s (Luigi Cardinal Poggi, Italy) appearance and announcement of “Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum; habemus papam” (I announce to you with great joy; we have a pope). He will continue with “Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum Cardinalem…qui sibi nomen…imposuit” (His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal…who has adopted for himself the name…). The new pontiff will then appear and offer the blessing Urbi et Orbi (to the City and to the world).

With the blessing having been given, the Church will celebrate and the world will realize that the Sede Vacante has come to an end. The smallest sovereign country in the world will once again have a head of state and the roughly one billion Catholics in the world will be able to look to the successor of Saint Peter for spiritual and moral guidance.

Saint's Prophecy: Only Two Popes Remain

When the college of cardinals pick John Paul II's successor starting April 18, they may well be choosing the next-to-last pope. The one who then follows the soon to be elected pope will be the last one who will wear "the shoes of the fisherman", and after his reign Rome will be destroyed.

Such has been the prophecy of St. Malachy, an Irish bishop who at his death in 1148 A.D. was discovered to have left behind a prophetic list of all future popes beginning with Pope Celestine II, whose papacy began in 1143 A.D.

Malachy included a single line in Latin identifying a characteristic of each pope. Historians say Malachy's prediction – wherein he listed just 112 popes – has been amazingly accurate.

According to his list, there are just two more popes after the late John Paul II.

"In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge the people. The End." Wrote Saint Malachy.

According to his biographer St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his book "Life of Saint Malachy," the saint was known to have the gift of prophesy and had even predicted the exact day and hour of his own death. Saint Malachy was canonized in 1190 by Pope Clement III.

While in Rome in 1139, Saint Malachy is said to have gone into a trance and received a vision in which he foresaw all the popes from the death of Innocent II until the end of time.

Afterward he wrote a few words about each pope and gave the manuscript to Pope Innocent II, who is said to have deposited it in Vatican Archives, where it lay forgotten until it was discovered in 1590 and published. At the time, some questioned its authenticity and it has been the subject of debate ever since.

The manuscript contains 112 prophecies, which scholars have matched with each of the 110 popes and anti-popes since Innocent II .

Here are the prophecies for the most recent popes:

Paul VI. The words of the 108th prophecy are "Flos Florum" (Flower of Flowers). The 108th pope after Innocent II was Paul VI (1963-78). His coat of arms included three fleurs-de-lis (iris blossoms).

John Paul I. The 109th is "De Medietate Lunae" (Of the Half Moon). The corresponding pope was John Paul I (1978-78), who was born in the diocese of Belluno (beautiful moon) and was baptized Albino Luciani (white light). He became pope on August 26, 1978, when the moon appeared exactly half full. It was in its waning phase. He died the following month, soon after an eclipse of the moon.

John Paul II. The 110th is "De Labore Solis" (Of the Solar Eclipse, or From the Toil of the Sun). The corresponding pope was John Paul II (1978-2005). John Paul II was born on May 8, 1920 during an eclipse of the sun. Like the sun, he came out of the East (Poland). Like the sun, he visited countries all around the globe. There will also be an eclipse on April 8, the day of his burial.

Today the final two prophecies are yet to be fulfilled:

The 111th prophecy is "Gloria Olivae" (The Glory of the Olive). The meaning of the olive is unclear. The Order of Saint Benedict – not St. Malachy – has claimed that this pope will come from its ranks and Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its final fight against evil.

The 112th prophecy says, "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.

Why I Am A Catholic

1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.

3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).

5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).

6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.

7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).

8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
9. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism - one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.

10. Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological relativism which leads to the uncertainties within the Protestant system among laypeople.

11. Catholicism rejects the "State Church," which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.

12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against universal equality and Christian universalism (i.e., catholicism).

13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars which in turn led to the "Enlightenment," in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.

14. Catholicism retains the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.

15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the "public square" barren of Christian influence.

16. The secular false dichotomy of "church vs. world" has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.

17. Protestantism leans too much on mere traditions of men (every denomination stems from one Founder's vision. As soon as two or more of these contradict each other, error is necessarily present).

18. Protestant churches (esp. evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, every pastor becomes a "pope," to varying degrees (some are "super-popes"). Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered.

19. Protestantism, due to lack of real authority and dogmatic structure, is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.

20. Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians.

21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."

22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn't, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.

23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).

24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

26. Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity. Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its absurdly late appearance. Christianity must have historic continuity or it is not Christianity. Protestantism is necessarily a "parasite" of Catholicism, historically and doctrinally speaking.

27. The Protestant notion of the "invisible church" is also novel in the history of Christianity and foreign to the Bible (Mt 5:14; 16:18), therefore untrue.

28. When Protestant theologians speak of the teaching of early Christianity (e.g., when refuting "cults"), they say "the Church taught . . ." (as it was then unified), but when they refer to the present they instinctively and inconsistently refrain from such terminology, since universal teaching authority now clearly resides only in the Catholic Church.

29. The Protestant principle of private judgment has created a milieu (esp. in Protestant America) in which (invariably) man-centered "cults" such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science arise. The very notion that one can "start" a new, or "the true" Church is Protestant to the core.

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.

31. Evangelicalism's "techniques" of evangelism are often contrived and manipulative, certainly not directly derived from the text of the Bible. Some even resemble brainwashing to a degree.

32. The gospel preached by many evangelical Protestant evangelists and pastors is a truncated and abridged, individualistic and ear-tickling gospel, in effect merely "fire insurance" rather than the biblical gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles.

33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Bonhoeffer called this "cheap grace."

34. The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal "freedom," "rights," and "choice" now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society.

35. Catholicism retains the sense of the sacred, the sublime, the holy, and the beautiful in spirituality. The ideas of altar, and "sacred space" are preserved. Many Protestant churches are no more than "meeting halls" or "gymnasiums" or "barn"-type structures. Most Protestants' homes are more esthetically striking than their churches. Likewise, Protestants are often "addicted to mediocrity" in their appreciation of art, music, architecture, drama, the imagination, etc.

36. Protestantism has largely neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus can't be so lightly dismissed.

37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.

38. Catholicism upholds the "incarnational principle," wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.

39. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many pentecostals) reject all sacraments.

40. Protestants' excessive mistrust of the flesh ("carnality") often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).

41. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of "spiritual" and "carnal," as if God is not Lord of all of life. It forgets that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.

42. Protestantism has removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly. This is against the Tradition of the early Church.

43. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).

44. Protestantism has virtually ceased to regard marriage as a sacrament, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 19:4-5; 1 Cor 7:14,39; Eph 5:25-33).

45. Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

46. Catholicism retains the Pauline notion of the spiritual practicality of a celibate clergy (e.g., Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:8,27,32-3).

47. Protestantism has largely rejected the sacrament of confirmation (Acts 8:18, Heb 6:2-4), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible.

48. Many Protestants have denied infant baptism, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 2:38-9; 16:15,33; 18:8; cf. 11:14; 1 Cor 1:16; Col 2:11-12). Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism.

49. The great majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

50. Protestants have rejected the sacrament of anointing of the sick (Extreme Unction / "Last Rites"), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 6:13; 1 Cor 12:9,30; Jas 5:14-15).

51. Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

52. Protestantism doesn't believe procreation to be the primary purpose and benefit of marriage (it isn't part of the vows, as in Catholic matrimony), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 1:28; 28:3, Ps 107:38; 127:3-5).

53. Protestantism sanctions contraception, in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition, over against the "anti-child" mentality.

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; 49:5; Jer 1:5; 2:34; Lk 1:15,41; Rom 13:9-10).

55. Protestantism (largely liberal denominations) allow women pastors (and even bishops, as in Anglicanism), contrary to Christian Tradition (inc. traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

56. Protestantism is, more and more, formally and officially compromising with currently fashionable radical feminism, which denies the roles of men and women, as taught in the Bible (Gen 2:18-23; 1 Cor 11:3-10) and maintained by Christian Tradition (differentiation of roles, but not of equality).

57. Protestantism is also currently denying, with increasing frequency, the headship of the husband in marriage, which is based upon the headship of the Father over the Son (while equal in essence) in the Trinity, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1-2). This too, is based on a relationship of equality (1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21).

58. Liberal Protestantism (most notably Anglicanism) has even ordained practicing homosexuals as pastors and blessed their "marriages," or taught that homosexuality is merely an involuntary, "alternate" lifestyle, contrary to formerly universal Christian Tradition, as the Bible clearly teaches (Gen 19:4-25; Rom 1:18-27; 1 Cor 6:9). Catholicism stands firm on traditional morality.

59. Liberal Protestantism, and evangelicalism increasingly, have accepted "higher critical" methods of biblical interpretation which lead to the destruction of the traditional Christian reverence for the Bible, and demote it to the status of largely a human, fallible document, to the detriment of its divine, infallible essence.

60. Many liberal Protestants have thrown out many cardinal doctrines of Christianity, such as the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, Original Sin, hell, the existence of the devil, miracles, etc.

61. The founders of Protestantism denied, and Calvinists today deny, the reality of human free will (Luther's favorite book was his Bondage of the Will). This is both contrary to the constant premise of the Bible, Christian Tradition, and common sense.

62. Classical Protestantism had a deficient view of the Fall of Man, thinking that the result was "total depravity." According to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvinists, man could only do evil of his own volition, and had no free will to do good. He now has a "sin nature." Catholicism believes that, in a mysterious way, man cooperates with the grace which always precedes all good actions. In Catholicism, man's nature still retains some good, although he has a propensity to sin ("concupiscence").

63. Classical Protestantism, and Calvinism today, make God the author of evil. He supposedly wills that men do evil and violate His precepts without having any free will to do so. This is blasphemous, and turns God into a demon.

64. Accordingly (man having no free will), God, in classical Protestant and Calvinist thought, predestines men to hell, although they had no choice or say in the matter all along!

65. Classical Protestantism and Calvinism, teach falsely that Jesus died only for the elect (i.e., those who will make it to heaven).

66. Classical Protestantism (esp. Luther), and Calvinism, due to their false view of the Fall, deny the efficacy and capacity of human reason to know God to some extent (both sides agree that revelation and grace are also necessary), and oppose it to God and faith, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 12:28; Lk 10:27; Jn 20:24-9; Acts 1:3; 17:2,17,22-34; 19:8). The best Protestant apologists today simply hearken back to the Catholic heritage of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many other great thinkers.

67. Pentecostal or charismatic Protestantism places much too high an emphasis on spiritual experience, not balancing it properly with reason, the Bible, and Tradition (including the authority of the Church to pronounce on the validity of "private revelations").

68. Other Protestants (e.g., many Baptists) deny that spiritual gifts such as healing are present in the current age (supposedly they ceased with the apostles).

69. Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making discipline, unity and order impossible. Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting therefrom.

70. Protestantism (esp. evangelicalism) has an undue fascination for the "end of the world," which has led to unbiblical date-setting (Mt 24:30-44; 25:13; Lk 12:39-40) and much human tragedy among those who are taken in by such false prophecies.

71. Evangelicalism's over-emphasis on the "imminent end" of the age has often led to a certain "pie-in-the sky" mentality, to the detriment of social, political, ethical, and economic sensibilities here on earth.

72. Protestant thought has the defining characteristic of being "dichotomous," i.e., it separates ideas into more or less exclusive and mutually-hostile camps, when in fact many of the dichotomies are simply complementary rather than contradictory. Protestantism is "either-or," whereas Catholicism takes a "both-and" approach. Examples follow:

73. Protestantism pits the Word (the Bible, preaching) against sacraments.

74. Protestantism sets up inner devotion and piety against the Liturgy.

75. Protestantism opposes spontaneous worship to form prayers.

76. Protestantism separates the Bible from the Church.

77. Protestantism creates the false dichotomy of Bible vs. Tradition.

78. Protetantism pits Tradition against the Holy Spirit.

79. Protestantism considers Church authority and individual liberty and conscience contradictory.

80. Protestantism (esp. Luther) sets up the Old Testament against the New Testament, even though Jesus did not do so (Mt 5:17-19; Mk 7:8-11; Lk 24:27,44; Jn 5:45-47).

81. On equally unbiblical grounds, Protestantism opposes law to grace.

82. Protestantism creates a false dichotomy between symbolism and sacramental reality (e.g., baptism,
Eucharist).

83. Protestantism separates the Individual from Christian community (1 Cor 12:14-27).

84. Protestantism pits the veneration of saints against the worship of God. Catholic theology doesn't permit worship of saints in the same fashion as that directed towards God. Saints are revered and honored, not adored, as only God the Creator can be.

85. The anti-historical outlook of many Protestants leads to individuals thinking that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them, but has not, in effect, spoken to the multitudes of Christians for 1500 years before Protestantism began!

86. Flaws in original Protestant thought have led to even worse errors in reaction. E.g., extrinsic justification, devised to assure the predominance of grace, came to prohibit any outward sign of its presence ("faith vs. works," "sola fide"). Calvinism, with its cruel God, turned men off to such an extent that they became Unitarians (as in New England). Many founders of cults of recent origin started out Calvinist (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, etc.).

87. Evangelicalism is unbiblically obsessed (in typically American fashion) with celebrities (TV Evangelists).

88. Evangelicalism is infatuated with the false idea that great numbers in a congregation (or rapid growth) are a sign of God's presence in a special way, and His unique blessing. They forget that Mormonism is also growing by leaps and bounds. God calls us to faithfulness rather than to "success," obedience, not flattering statistics.

89. Evangelicalism often emphasizes numerical growth rather than individual spiritual growth.

90. Evangelicalism is presently obsessed with self-fulfillment, self-help, and oftentimes, outright selfishness, rather than the traditional Christian stress on suffering, sacrifice, and service.

91. Evangelicalism has a truncated and insufficient view of the place of suffering in the Christian life. Instead, "health-and-wealth" and "name-it-and-claim-it" movements within pentecostal Protestantism are flourishing, which have a view of possessions not in harmony with the Bible and Christian Tradition.

92. Evangelicalism has, by and large, adopted a worldview which is, in many ways, more capitalist than Christian. Wealth and personal gain is sought more than godliness, and is seen as a proof of God's favor, as in Puritan, and secularized American thought, over against the Bible and Christian teaching.

93. Evangelicalism is increasingly tolerating far-left political outlooks not in accord with Christian views, esp. at its seminaries and colleges.

94. Evangelicalism is increasingly tolerating theological heterodoxy and liberalism, to such an extent that many evangelical leaders are alarmed, and predict a further decay of orthodox standards.

95. "Positive confession" movements in pentecostal evangelicalism have adopted views of God (in effect) as a "cosmic bellhop," subject to man's frivolous whims and desires of the moment, thus denying God's absolute sovereignty and prerogative to turn down any of man's improper prayer requests (Jas 4:3; 1 Jn 5:14).

96. The above sects usually teach that anyone can be healed who has enough "faith," contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Job, St. Paul's "thorn in the flesh," usu. considered a disease by most Protestant commentators).

97. Evangelicalism, by its own self-critiques, is badly infected with pragmatism, the false philosophical view
that "whatever works is true, or right." The gospel, esp. on TV, is sold in the same way that McDonalds hawks hamburgers. Technology, mass-market and public relations techniques have largely replaced personal pastoral care and social concern for the downtrodden, irreligious, and unchurched masses.

98. Sin, in evangelicalism, is increasingly seen as a psychological failure or a lack of self-esteem, rather than the willful revolt against God that it is.

99. Protestantism, in all essential elements, merely borrows wholesale from Catholic Tradition, or distorts the
same. All doctrines upon which Catholics and Protestants agree, are clearly Catholic in origin (Trinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, 2nd Coming, Canon of the Bible, heaven, hell, etc.). Those where Protestantism differs are usually distortions of Catholic forerunners. E.g., Quakerism is a variant of Catholic Quietism. Calvinism is an over-obsession with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of God, but taken to lengths beyond what Catholicism ever taught (denial of free will, total depravity, double predestination, etc.). Protestant dichotomies such as faith vs. works, come from nominalism, which was itself a corrupt form of Scholasticism, never dogmatically sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Whatever life or truth is present in each Protestant idea, always is derived from Catholicism, which is the fulfillment of the deepest and best aspirations within Protestantism.

100. One of Protestantism's foundational principles is sola Scriptura, which is neither a biblical (see below),
historical (nonexistent until the 16th century), nor logical (it's self-defeating) idea:

101. The Bible doesn't contain the whole of Jesus' teaching, or Christianity, as many Protestants believe (Mk 4:33; 6:34; Lk 24:15-16,25-27; Jn 16:12; 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3).

102. Sola scriptura is an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition. An objective reading of the Bible leads one to Tradition and the Catholic Church, rather than the opposite. The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself!

103. The NT was neither written nor received as the Bible at first, but only gradually so (i.e., early Christianity
couldn't have believed in sola Scriptura like current Protestants, unless it referred to the OT alone).

104. Tradition is not a bad word in the Bible. Gk. paradosis refers to something handed on from one to another
(good or bad). Good (Christian) Tradition is spoken of in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, and Col 2:8. In the latter it is contrasted with traditions of men.

105. Christian Tradition, according to the Bible, can be oralas well as written (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). St. Paul makes no qualitative distinction between the two forms.

106. The phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" in Acts and the epistles almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the Bible itself. Much of the Bible was originally oral (e.g., Jesus' entire teaching- He wrote nothing -St. Peter's sermon at Pentecost, etc.).

107. Contrary to many Protestant claims, Jesus didn't condemn all tradition any more than St. Paul did. E.g., Mt 15:3,6; Mk 7:8-9,13, where He condemns corrupt Pharisaical tradition only. He says "your tradition."

108. Gk. paradidomi, or "delivering" Christian, apostolic Tradition occurs in Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3. Paralambano, or "receiving" Christian Tradition occurs in 1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9,12; 1 Thess 2:13.

109. The concepts of "Tradition," "gospel," "word of God," "doctrine," and "the Faith" are essentially synonymous, and all are predominantly oral. E.g., in the Thessalonian epistles alone St. Paul uses 3 of these interchangeably (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Thess 2:9,13 (cf. Gal 1:9; Acts 8:14). If Tradition is a dirty word, then so is "gospel" and "word of God"!

110. St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15, puts the Church above Bible as the grounds for truth, as in Catholicism.

111. Protestantism's chief "proof text" for sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:16, fails, since it says that the Bible is profitable, but not sufficient for learning and righteousness. Catholicism agrees it is great for these purposes, but not exclusively so, as in Protestantism. Secondly, when St. Paul speaks of "Scripture" here, the NT didn't yet exist (not definitively for over 300 more years), thus he is referring to the OT only. This would mean that NT wasn't necessary for the rule of faith, if sola Scriptura were true, and if it were supposedly alluded to in this verse!

112. The above 11 factors being true, Catholicism maintains that all its Tradition is consistent with the Bible,
even where the Bible is mute or merely implicit on a subject. For Catholicism, every doctrine need not be found primarily in the Bible, for this is Protestantism's principle of sola Scriptura. On the other hand, most Catholic theologians claim that all Catholic doctrines can be found in some fashion in the Bible, in kernel form, or by (usu. extensive) inference.

113. As thoughtful evangelical scholars have pointed out, an unthinking sola Scriptura position can turn into "bibliolatry," almost a worship of the Bible rather than God who is its Author. This mentality is similar to the Muslim view of Revelation, where no human elements whatsoever were involved. Sola Scriptura,, rightly understood from a more sophisticated Protestant perspective, means that the Bible is the final authority in Christianity, not the record of all God has said and done, as many evangelicals believe.

114. Christianity is unavoidably and intrinsically historical. All the events of Jesus' life (Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.) were historical, as was the preaching of the apostles. Tradition, therefore, of some sort, is unavoidable, contrary to numerous shortsighted Protestant claims that sola Scriptura annihilates Tradition. This is true both for matters great (ecclesiology, trinitarianism, justification) and small (church budgets, type of worship music, lengths of sermons, etc.). Every denial of a particular tradition involves a bias (hidden or open) towards one's own alternate tradition (E.g., if all Church authority is spurned, even individualistic autonomy is a "tradition," which ought to be defended as a Christian view in some fashion).

115. Sola scriptura literally couldn't have been true, practically speaking, for most Christians throughout history, since the movable-type printing press only appeared in the mid-15th century. Preaching and oral Tradition, along with things like devotional practices, Christian holidays, church architecture and other sacred art, were the primary carriers of the gospel for 1400 years. For all these centuries, sola Scriptura would have been regarded as an absurd abstraction and impossibility.

116. Protestantism claims that the Catholic Church has "added to the Bible." The Catholic Church replies that it has merely drawn out the implications of the Bible (development of doctrine), and followed the understanding of the early Church, and that Protestants have "subtracted" from the Bible by ignoring large portions of it which suggest Catholic positions. Each side thinks the other is "unbiblical," but in different ways.

117. Sola Scriptura is Protestantism's "Achilles' Heel." Merely invoking sola Scriptura is no solution to the problem of authority and certainty as long as multiple interpretations exist. If the Bible were so clear that all Protestants agreed simply by reading it with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, this would be one thing, but since this isn't the case by a long shot (the multiplicity of denominations), sola Scriptura is a pipe-dream at best. About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong! Of all Protestant ideas, the "clarity" or perspicuity of the Bible is surely one of the most absurd and the most demonstrably false by the historical record.

118. Put another way, having a Bible does not render one's private judgment infallible. Interpretation is just as inevitable as tradition. The Catholic Church therefore, is absolutely necessary in order to speak authoritatively and to prevent confusion, error, and division.

119. Catholicism doesn't regard the Bible as obscure, mysterious, and inaccessible, but it is vigilant to protect it from all arbitrary and aberrant exegesis (2 Pet 1:20, 3:16). The best Protestant traditions seek to do the same, but are inadequate and ineffectual since they are divided.

120. Protestantism has a huge problem with the Canon of the NT. The process of determining the exact books
which constitute the NT lasted until 397 A.D., when the Council of Carthage spoke with finality, certainly proof that the Bible is not "self-authenticating," as Protestantism believes. Some sincere, devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible, and others considered books as Scripture which were not at length included in the Canon. St. Athanasius in 367 was the first to list all 27 books in the NT as Scripture.

121. The Council of Carthage, in deciding the Canon of the entire Bible in 397, included the so-called "Apocryphal" books, which Protestants kicked out of the Bible (i.e., a late tradition). Prior to the 16th century Christians considered these books Scripture, and they weren't even separated from the others, as they are today in the Protestant Bibles which include them. Protestantism accepts the authority of this Council for the NT, but not the OT, just as it arbitrarily and selectively accepts or denies other conciliar decrees, according to their accord with existing Protestant "dogmas" and biases.

122. Contrary to Protestant anti-Catholic myth, the Catholic Church has always revered the Bible, and hasn't suppressed it (it protested some Protestant translations, but Protestants have often done the same regarding Catholic versions). This is proven by the laborious care of monks in protecting and copying manuscripts, and the constant translations into vernacular tongues (as opposed to the falsehoods about only Latin Bibles), among other plentiful and indisputable historical evidences. The Bible is a Catholic book, and no matter how much Protestants study it and proclaim it as peculiarly their own, they must acknowledge their undeniable debt to the Catholic Church for having decided the Canon, and for preserving the Bible intact for 1400 years. How could the Catholic Church be "against the Bible," as anti-Catholics say, yet at the same time preserve and revere the Bible profoundly for so many years? The very thought is so absurd as to be self-refuting. If Catholicism is indeed as heinous as anti-Catholics would have us believe, Protestantism ought to put together its own Bible, instead of using the one delivered to them by the Catholic Church, as it obviously could not be trusted!

123. Protestantism denies the Sacrifice of the Mass, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Isa 66:18,21; Mal 1:11; Heb 7:24-5; 13:10; Rev 5:1-10/cf. 8:3; 13:8). Catholicism, it must be emphasized, doesn't believe that Jesus is sacrificed over and over at each Mass; rather, each Mass is a representation of the one Sacrifice at Calvary on the Cross, which transcends space and time, as in Rev 13:8.

124. Protestantism disbelieves, by and large, in the development of doctrine, contrary to Christian Tradition and many implicit biblical indications. Whenever the Bible refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians individually and (particularly) collectively, an idea similar to development is present. Further, many doctrines develop in the Bible before our eyes ("progressive revelation"). Examples: the afterlife, the Trinity, acceptance of Gentiles. And doctrines which Protestantism accepts whole and entire from Catholicism, such as the Trinity and the Canon of the Bible, developed in history, in the first three centuries of Christianity. It is foolish to try and deny this. The Church is the "Body" of Christ, and is a living organism, which grows and develops like all living bodies. It is not a statue, simply to be cleaned and polished over time, as many Protestants seem to think.

125. Protestantism separates justification from sanctification, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Mt 5:20; 7:20-24; Rom 2:7-13; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 1:2).

126. Protestantism pits faith against works (sola fide), which is a rejection of Christian Tradition and the
explicit teaching of the Bible (Mt 25:31-46; Lk 18:18-25; Jn 6:27-9; Gal 5:6; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 2:12-13; 3:10-14; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Heb 5:9; Jas 1:21-7; 2:14-16). These passages also indicate that salvation is a process, not an instantaneous event, as in Protestantism.

127. Protestantism rejects the Christian Tradition and biblical teaching of merit, or differential reward for our good deeds done in faith (Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:8-9; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 22:12).

128. Protestantism's teaching of extrinsic, imputed, forensic, or external justification contradicts the Christian Tradition and biblical doctrine of infused, actual, internal, transformational justification (which inc. sanctification): Ps 51:2-10; 103:12; Jn 1:29; Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 5:17; Heb 1:3; 1 Jn 1:7-9.

129. Many Protestants (esp. Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists) believe in eternal security, or,
perseverance of the saints (the belief that one can't lose his "salvation," supposedly obtained at one point in time). This is contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible: 1 Cor 9:27; Gal 4:9; 5:1,4; Col 1:22-3; 1 Tim 1:19-20; 4:1; 5:15; Heb 3:12-14; 6:4-6; 10:26,29,39; 12:14-15; 2 Pet 2:15,20-21; Rev 2:4-5.

130. Contrary to Protestant myth and anti-Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that one is saved by works apart from preceding and enabling grace, but that faith and works are inseparable, as in James 1 and 2. This heresy of which Catholicism is often charged, was in fact condemned by the Catholic Church at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D. It is known as Pelagianism, the view that man could save himself by his own natural efforts, without the necessary supernatural grace from God. A more moderate view, Semi-Pelagianism, was likewise condemned. To continue to accuse the Catholic Church of this heresy is a sign of both prejudice and manifest ignorance of the history of theology, as well as the clear Catholic teaching of the Council of Trent (1545-63), available for all to see. Yet the myth is strangely prevalent.

131. Protestantism has virtually eliminated the practice of confession to a priest (or at least a pastor), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23).

132. Protestantism disbelieves in penance, or temporal punishment for (forgiven) sin, over against Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Num 14:19-23; 2 Sam 12:13-14; 1 Cor 11:27-32; Heb 12:6-8).

133. Protestantism has little concept of the Tradition and biblical doctrine of mortifying the flesh, or, suffering with Christ: Mt 10:38; 16:24: Rom 8:13,17; 1 Cor 12:24-6; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1,13.

134. Likewise, Protestantism has lost the Tradition and biblical doctrine of vicarious atonement, or redemptive suffering with Christ, of Christians for the sake of each other: Ex 32:30-32; Num 16:43-8; 25:6-13; 2 Cor 4:10; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 4:6.

135. Protestantism has rejected the Tradition and biblical doctrine of purgatory, as a consequence of its false view of justification and penance, despite sufficient evidence in Scripture: Is 4:4; 6:5-7; Micah 7:8-9; Mal 3:1-4; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; Mt 5:25-6; 12:32; Lk 16:19-31 (cf. Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:19-20); 1 Cor 3:11-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 21:27.

136. Protestantism has rejected (largely due to misconceptions and misunderstanding) the Catholic developed doctrine of indulgences, which is, simply, the remission of the temporal punishment for sin (i.e., penance), by the Church (on the grounds of Mt 16:19; 18:18, and Jn 20:23). This is no different than what St. Paul did, concerning an errant brother at the Church of Corinth. He first imposed a penance on him (1 Cor 5:3-5), then remitted part of it (an indulgence: 2 Cor 2:6-11). Just because abuses occurred prior to the Protestant Revolt (admitted and rectified by the Catholic Church), is no reason to toss out yet another biblical doctrine. It is typical of Protestantism to burn down a house rather than to cleanse it, to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

137. Protestantism has thrown out prayers for the dead, in opposition to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; 1 Cor 15:29; 2 Tim 1:16-18; also verses having to do with purgatory, since these prayers are for the saints there).

138. Protestantism rejects, on inadequate grounds, the intercession of the saints for us after death, and the correspondent invocation of the saints for their effectual prayers (Jas 5:16). Christian Tradition and the Bible, on the other hand, have upheld this practice: Dead saints are aware of earthly affairs (Mt 22:30 w/ Lk 15:10 and 1 Cor 15:29; Heb 12:1), appear on earth to interact with men (1 Sam 28:12-15; Mt 17:1-3, 27:50-53; Rev 11:3), and therefore can intercede for us, and likewise be petitioned for their prayers, just as are Christians on earth (2 Maccabees 15:14; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10).

139. Some Protestants disbelieve in Guardian Angels, despite Christian Tradition and the Bible (Ps 34:7; 91:11; Mt 18:10; Acts 12:15; Heb 1:14).

140. Most Protestants deny that angels can intercede for us, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Rev 1:4; 5:8; 8:3-4).

141. Protestantism rejects Mary's Immaculate Conception, despite developed Christian Tradition and indications in the Bible: Gen 3:15; Lk 1:28 ("full of grace" Catholics interpret, on linguistic grounds, to mean "without sin"); Mary as a type of the Ark of the Covenant (Lk 1:35 w/ Ex 40:34-8; Lk 1:44 w/ 2 Sam 6:14-16; Lk 1:43 w/ 2 Sam 6:9: God's Presence requires extraordinary holiness).

142. Protestantism rejects Mary's Assumption, despite developed Christian Tradition and biblical indications: If Mary was indeed sinless, she would not have to undergo bodily decay at death (Ps 16:10; Gen 3:19). Similar occurrences in the Bible make the Assumption not implausible or "unbiblical" per se (Enoch: Gen 5:24 w/ Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Ki 2:11; Paul: 2 Cor 12:2-4; the Protestant doctrine of the "Rapture": 1 Thess 4:15-17; risen saints: Mt 27:52-3).

143. Many (most?) Protestants deny Mary's perpetual virginity, despite Christian Tradition (inc. the unanimous agreement of the Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), some Protestant support, and several biblical evidences, too involved to briefly summarize.

144. Protestantism denies Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of Christians, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Jn 19:26-7: "Behold thy mother"; Rev 12:1,5,17: Christians described as "her seed.") Catholics believe that Mary is incomparably more alive and holy than we are, hence, her prayers for us are of great effect (Jas 5:16; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10). But she is our sister with regard to our position of creatures vis-a-vis the Creator, God. Mary never operates apart from the necessary graces from her Son, and always glorifies Him, not herself, as Catholic theology stresses.

145. Protestantism rejects the papacy, despite profound Christian Tradition, and the strong evidence in the Bible of Peter's preeminence and commission by Jesus as the Rock of His Church. No one denies he was some type of leader among the apostles. The papacy as we now know it is derived from this primacy: Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-2; Jn 21:15-17 are the most direct "papal" passages. Peter's name appears first in all lists of apostles; even an angel implies he is their leader (Mk 16:7), and he is accepted by the world as such (Acts 2:37-8,41). He works the first miracle of the Church age (Acts 3:6-8), utters the first anathema (Acts 5:2-11), raises the dead (Acts 9:40), first receives the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-48), and his name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together (191 times). Much more similar evidence can be found.

146. The Church of Rome and the popes were central to the governance and theological direction and orthodoxyof the Christian Church from the beginning. This is undeniable. All of the historical groups now regarded as heretical by Protestants and Catholics alike were originally judged as such by popes and/or Ecumenical Councils presided over and ratified by popes.

147. Protestantism, in its desperation to eke out some type of historical continuity apart from the Catholic Church, sometimes attempts to claim a lineage from medieval sects such as the Waldenses, Cathari, and Albigensians (and sometimes earlier groups such as the Montanists or Donatists). However, this endeavor is doomed to failure when one studies closely what these sects believed. They either retain much Catholic teaching anathema to Protestants or hold heretical notions antithetical to Christianity altogether (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), or both, making this Protestant theory quite dubious at best.

148. Catholic has the most sophisticated and thoughtful Christian socio-economic and political philosophy, a mixture of "progressive" and "conservative" elements distinct from the common-place political rhetoric and Machiavellianism which typically dominate the political arena. Catholicism has the best view of church in relation to the state and culture as well.

149. Catholicism has the best Christian philosophy and worldview, worked out through centuries of reflection and experience. As in its theological reflection and development, the Catholic Church is ineffably wise and profound, to an extent truly amazing, and indicative of a sure divine stamp. I used to marvel, just before I converted, at how the Catholic Church could be so right about so many things. I was accustomed to thinking, as a good evangelical, that the truth was always a potpourri of ideas from many Protestant denominations and Catholicism and Orthodoxy (selected by me), and that none "had it all together." But, alas, the Catholic Church does, after all!

150. Last but by no means least, Catholicism has the most sublime spirituality and devotional spirit, manifested in a thousand different ways, from the monastic ideal, to the heroic celibacy of the clergy and religious, the Catholic hospitals, the sheer holiness of a Thomas a Kempis or a St. Ignatius and their great devotional books, countless saints - both canonized and as yet unknown and unsung, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Pope John XXIII, the early martyrs, St. Francis of Assisi, the events at Lourdes and Fatima, the dazzling intellect of John Henry Cardinal Newman, the wisdom and insight of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, St. John of the Cross, the sanctified wit of a Chesterton or a Muggeridge, elderly women doing the Stations of the Cross or the Rosary, Holy Hour, Benediction, kneeling - the list goes on and on. This devotional spirit is unmatched in its scope and deepness, despite many fine counterparts in Protestant and Orthodox spirituality.