 |
| Christ Giving the Keys to St Peter |
Today's Mass readings (Is. 22:19-23; Rom. 11:33-36; Mt. 16:13-20)—most especially the Gospel reading—talk about the founding of God's Church which comes with a divine guarantee. Since there is such disparity between how Catholics and non-Catholics view this, I've done some research into the matter.
In
short, Catholics believe that when Jesus founded His Church, He did so once and
for all and that with His promise of divine guarantee (Mt. 16:18, "...the
powers of death shall not prevail against [My Church]."), His Church will
be preserved throughout all time and protected from teaching errors.
Non-Catholics (at least those who believe in Jesus, The Bible, etc.) disagree
with this for various reasons (because otherwise, they'd be Catholic).
The
reason for Mormons is their belief in "the Great Apostasy," which
claims that shortly after the time of Christ (often said to be with the death
of the last apostle), Christ's Church fell into error and thus removed itself
from the face of the earth until such time that a prophet could restore it.
Recently, when researching how Mormons could believe such a claim that seems to
make Jesus' divine guarantee null and void, I came across a talk by Hyrum W.
Smith titled, "Why 1820."
The
talk can be found here:
PDF Transcript
Audio Recording
It
has come to my attention that for many Mormons, this talk is their main source
of knowledge on The Catholic Faith and perhaps even Christian history in
general. Since there are inaccuracies and flat-out errors in Smith's talk, I've
taken it upon myself to write up a response with some corrections for those who
may need it. Here it is:
Rome Apostatized
Smith
says that the church in Rome had apostatized from what Peter established and to
"Read the first chapter of Romans in the New Testament, understanding that
that chapter was written upon Paul’s return from Rome and described what he
found there."
Well,
I read Romans 1, and a few chapters after that just to make sure I wasn't
missing something. It doesn't seem to say what Smith says it says and, in fact,
I've found it says the opposite of what Smith claims.
First,
this is not written on Paul's return from Rome, but rather
before Paul goes to Rome. I think this is pretty clear
especially in verse 10, saying he prays he will be able to go to Rome, in
verses 11-12, saying how excited he is to preach the Gospel in Rome, and in
verses 13-14, saying how he's desired to go to Rome, but has other obligations.
Second,
Paul lauds them for living their faith so well that it is proclaimed in all the
world. This does not sound like the Romans apostatized.
Third,
the terrible acts that Paul describes are not in reference to how the Romans
are living. Instead they are in reference to "men who by their wickedness
suppress the true" (verse 18). From what I can tell, "men" is
just humans in general, not a specific populace. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
my understanding of this text is Paul basically saying, "Since the creation
of the world, people have done these wicked things." It does not at all
sound like he is admonishing the Romans for doing these things or implying that
they are doing them.
Smith claims there were two Linuses
Can
anyone point me to sources or documentation on the two Linuses that Hyrum Smith
mentions? One Linus is indeed the second Catholic Pope and is supposedly the
one mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21, but trying to find info on the other Linus, I only
find other transcripts of this talk and Catholics asking the same question. It
kind of seems like Smith made this part up out of whole cloth, though I'm open
to correction if sources can be provided. Since Smith's argument for the Great
Apostasy hinges on this point, I'm hoping someone might have some good sources.
Where the Catholic Church got its name
"Catholic"
does indeed mean "universal," but Linus had nothing to do with that.
It was written in a letter sent by Ignatius of Antioch to Christians living in
Smyrna in AD 110, during the pontificate of Pope Alexander, the 6th pope. That
is the first known usage of "Catholic Church." The Roman Catholic
Church is the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (this is the biggest rite in
the US, so I don't blame Smith for confusing this point). There are also other
rites that belong to the Catholic Church, such as the Byzantine rite—perhaps
the second most well-known.
Apostasy took place in AD 101.
Obviously,
I contest this point, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I do applaud him, though,
because this is the first time I've heard a solid date. Usually I hear
something like, "between AD 50 and AD 600."
Christians in the catacombs are from the apostate group.
See
my first point about Romans.
The reasons behind the Nicene Council and the understanding
of the Nicene Creed.
This
is WAY over simplified and, while humorous how Smith says it, is inaccurate. I
won't try to go into this too much because it would take too long, but I would,
like Smith, recommend reading the Nicene Creed and doing research into it and
the Council. People started coming up with heresies, so a council was called to
clear them up (in this case the Nicene Council was called largely to combat
Arianism, which claims Jesus is not divine). So the council came up with a
profession of faith, a Credo, or Creed, ("Credo" = "I
believe") to prevent Christians from falling into heresy.
To
explain the Trinity would take forever. To simplify a bit, Jesus is God, The
Father is God, The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not The Father. Jesus is not
the Holy Spirit. The Father is not The Holy Spirit. They are a Tri-Unity; three
persons in one nature. This is befuddling for humans to understand because
there's nothing in our experience that matches this. It's often said that if
you think you understand the Trinity, then you don't understand the Trinity.
One of the best ways I've heard to describe it is like this. You are one
"who" in one "what." What are you? Human. Who are you?
Whatever your name is. Asking this to God would be like this: What are you? God.
Who are you? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So
yes, The Father, The Son (Jesus), and The Holy Spirit are one. No "but not
really." No "but only sort of." No "they're kind of
one." No "we think they should be, therefore they are." They are
one. John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one." The first verse of
John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and
the Word was God." John 15:26 says, Jesus will send the Spirit from the
Father, "the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father." If the
Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and proceeds from the Father, it must be the
Spirit of God, but since the Spirit cannot be separate from God, being the
Spirit of God, the Spirit is, thus, God. Ergo, one God, three distinct persons.
You may disagree and, almost assuredly, you do, but I'm not here to discuss
Trinitarian theology; just trying to explain how Catholics see the Trinity
since Smith did not do very well with that.
"Idol worship enters the Catholic Church."
This
simple statement shows how little Smith actually knows about the Catholic
Church. There are people who claim that Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Saying
Catholics worship idols is kind of like that. Catholics do not worship statues,
icons, or anything else that may be considered an idol. Catholics do not
worship Mary nor the saints. Catholics worship God alone, most obviously and
preeminently in The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Why
do Catholics have statues and images of Mary and the saints then? Why do
Catholics pray to Mary and the saints? ...Well, why do you have pictures of
your family? Why do people put up statues of notable people in history? Why do
you ask your friends and family to pray for you? Statues and images of saints
are holy reminders of those who have lived heroic lives of faith and charity.
Prayers to Mary and the saints are nothing more than asking them to intercede
on one's behalf, just like you might ask your friends to pray for you. The only
difference being is that the saints are united with God in Heaven and since the
prayers of a righteous man avails much, the saints in Heaven are in the best
possible position to pray for someone.
"There was a woman Pope"
The
story of "Pope Joan" is a work of fiction and has been debunked
multiple times. One interesting tidbit about her story which more or less
proves it as fictional is that she gave birth on a horse in a public
procession. A 9-months pregnant woman is obviously pregnant to those who see
her, so 1) why would she be out in public for people to see her? And 2) why
would she be riding a horse in a public procession, knowing she could give
birth at any moment? There are a lot more things that can be brought up, but if
you don't believe me that this story is fictional, research it.
"In 1100 A.D., there were three popes"
There
were never three popes. There was one time where there were three claimants to be pope.
This kind of thing has actually happened several times in the history of The
Catholic Church and the false claimants are known as antipopes.
There
was an antipope who died in AD 1100; I'm guessing Smith saw this date and just
ran with it because what he is referring to is the Western Schism, which took
place between 1378 and 1417. If interested, look into it; I don't know much
more about the details. I will say this though, there is, at most, only 1
person occupying the papal office (I say "most" because sometimes
it's zero, such as when one pope dies and his successor is yet to be chosen).
"I’m not here making fun of Catholic history. I’m here
helping us understand."
I'm
not so sure. If he wanted to help people understand, he should have done more
research.
Imagine
if someone did this little research on the Mormon church before trying to
"help people understand" their beliefs. "In the 1800s, this kid,
Joseph Smith, was out using occult magic trying to find buried treasure, when
he stumbled upon some mushrooms and thought he saw Jesus and The Father. A few
years later, he started his own cult and wanted lots of wives, so he commanded
some of his followers to marry him because God told him they needed to. He
claimed that when Jesus ascended to Heaven, he didn't actually ascend to
Heaven, but instead flew to America to share His Gospel. The people He visited
wrote down the Book of Mormon on gold plates in a language that was only used
by them. So when Joseph Smith found the plates in the 1800s, he had to
translate them by sticking his head in a hat. He said that blacks were cursed
people so couldn't hold the priesthood. Then later, when Mormons were feeling
like outcasts and being pressured by the government, God decided to change His
mind about polygamy. Same with racism when the US stopped being so
racist."
Now,
imagine 8 pages of that; some of it's true, some of it's false, some of it's
common rumours, but a lot of it needs clarification. It would be a very poor
talk/paper for helping people understand Mormon beliefs and values. This is why
I'm writing all this, to help people understand the things for which Hyrum
Smith did little research.
"Sale of Indulgences"
This
was a great scandal to the Catholic Church and should have never happened.
Martin Luther and others had every right to be angry about this. However, the
selling of indulgences was NOT the selling of forgiveness of sins.
In
the Catholic Church there is what's called the Sacrament of Reconciliation
(also known as Confession or Penance, though less apt names). This is when a
Catholic (a penitent) visits a priest and confesses their sins. The priest then
gives the penitent a penance and absolves them of their sins in persona
Christi. (James 5:16 says "Confess your sins to one another" and John
20:23 says "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained.")
Why
confession to priest and not God? It's both and; if you'd like me to elaborate,
let me know.
Anyway,
absolution of sins is always free. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is always
free. So what's with the selling of indulgences? The penance part. The penance
the priest gives will vary by priest, sins confessed, time, etc. Forgiveness is
not conditional on doing penance; once the priest absolves the penitent, then
the penitent is absolved. Penance is remediation for the sins committed. For
example, imagine you broke a neighbor's window when playing baseball. You tell
your neighbor that you're sorry and they forgive you, but they still have a
broken window. To remedy this, you might clean up the mess and pay for a new
window. This remediation is like a penance.
A
long time ago, during the time that indulgences were being sold (technically, they
weren't sold; it was more like a donation and an indulgence was a gift in
return), penances were more of a public thing and could often be something like
having to sit in the back of the church for months or even years. Indulgences
were introduced to help people with their penance, so instead of sitting in the
back of the church for three months, one might do a certain pious or charitable
act to gain an indulgence of two months. Now, they only have to sit in the back
for one month. In the previous example, this would be akin to your neighbor
helping you clean up the mess and/or deciding to pay for a portion of the
window themselves; the neighbor is indulging you.
As
a scandalous way to raise money for The Church, people started promoting
donating money to the Church so that the penitent could gain an indulgence.
Martin Luther
Many
books have been written on Luther and his dissent, so I'm not even going to
bother much. Read "Exsurge Domine." He rejected some Church teachings
and wanted to institute new heretical teachings, so rather than The Church
saying "Back off with your questions or you’ll be excommunicated," it
was more like "adhere to the teachings of the church or you’ll be
excommunicated." Granted, The Catholic Church was kind of a mess and the
popes of the time weren't that great; The Church needed a reformation, but
Martin Luther wanted things his way, so he protested, modified the Bible, and
started his own church.
As
far as the "papal hit on Martin Luther" and the Catholic Church
pronouncing it's okay to kill Martin Luther, I have found zero evidence to back
that up. If anyone has a source, I'd love to see it. He very well may have
feared for his life and people very well may have wanted to kill him, but those
are people, not The Catholic Church.
Other Mistakes
These
are only the mistakes I noticed immediately and bothered to respond to. Most of
the other things in Smith's talk I didn't address because I don't know enough
about them. However, judging by the lackadaisical approach he took to studying
the Catholic Church and Christian antiquity, I would not doubt that there are
also errors in the other portions of his talk.
Conclusion
All
in all, while there have been bad popes and scandals, these were/are human
faults. When there's only one church and everyone's a part of it, guess where
all the sinners are. Despite people, even those in authority, acting contrary
to the teachings of The Catholic Church, the fact remains that the teachings of
The Church were left unaltered. I'll take that "papal hit on Luther"
a step further...even IF the pope paid to
have Martin Luther killed, that would have been the pope acting in his own
interests and the sin would be on his soul. While the pope may abuse his
position of power, this does not mean that the Catholic Church allows or
condones such abuse; The Church does and will not allow nor condone abuse.
I
think it's important that people know what The Catholic Church really teaches
and what really happened. If anyone would like more clarification or resources
on points I've talked about or the Catholic Church in general, let me know.
