Catholic Q&A: Does baptism bring justification?

One reader left an anonymous comment in an old post regarding the "Have You Been Saved" question?

Here is the original post:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/
catholic-q-have-you-been-saved.html

He or she wrote:

"You are justified by the Blood of Jesus (Romans 5:9), not by baptism. In the Scriptures their are 7 different types of Baptisms. I assure you that their is 1 baptism that you dont want to recieve. FIRE (Matthew 3:11)."

This individual quotes from Romans 5:9 for the fact that we are justified by the Blood of Christ, but does not give a scriptural citation for the explicit belief that baptism does not justify. To say that we are justified by the blood of Christ is the same as saying that we are justified by the death of Christ (jn 3:16ff), and, to put it more fully, the entire paschal mystery (the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ). The question then is how do we appropriate the salvfic paschal mystery of Jesus? If one reads further into Romans Chapter 6, we discover that the answer is faith AND BAPTISM:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4).

Of course we are saved by the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross! No Catholic denies that it is the Blood of Jesus that saves us. Indeed, the Precious Body and Blood is the very lifeblood of the Christian soul. Our Lord promised that if we eat his body and drink his blood we abide in him as he abides in us (Jn 6:56); we have eternal life and will be raised up on the last day (Jn 6:54). On the contrary, if we do not eat His body and drink His blood we have no life within us (Jn 6:53). This is why Catholics enter the body of Christ the Church and are incorporated into the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ through baptism (Rom 6:3-7) and confirmation [or, in the East, "chrismation"] (Acts 8:14-17), and then obey the Lord's command to 'do this in memory of me'--celebrating the Holy Eucharist (Lk 22:14-23; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; 1 Cor 11:23-26; Acts 2:46-47; Lk 24:13-35--the structure of the Eucharistic celebration). When approaching the mystical supper, of course, we must do so worthily, "for any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29).

Baptism is not a mere symbol. Jesus said that "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is first born of "water and the Spirit" (Jn 3:5). This is an obvious reference to water baptism.
St. Paul says that we are washed in the bath of rebirth (Titus 3:5) and the First Letter of St. Peter states that "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21). In his grand preaching immediately after Penetcost, St. Peter roared, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Notice that the Holy Spirit was not given to disciples until the full rite of baptism was completed, with water, the laying on of hands, and anointing [the Church sees confirmation as a separate sacrament, though the completion of baptism]:

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit; for the Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17).

One is justified by Christ because one receives gift of the Holy Spirit that Our Lord freely gives us. This passage makes it very clear that baptism is not simply an external symbolic act of a profession of faith (as baptists would have you believe). Rather, it actually matters how you administer baptism (in the Trinitarian formula [Mt 28:18-20] and not simply "in the name of Jesus"; complete with the laying on of hands; etc.). It says that "then they laid their hands on them" and what immediately follows is "they received the Holy Spirit." We are justified by faith and water baptism. The act of faith is intimately tied to the reception of the sacrament through Jesus' commissioned Church.

The teaching of the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition (as seen in the ancient liturgy, church councils, and church fathers) are clear that we are justified through faith in Jesus Christ and Trinitarian baptism.

More detailed apologetics from the Scripture Catholic apologetics website:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-I
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-II

But don't trust my interpretation of Scripture, trust the early Church fathers who were much closer to the time of Jesus, his apostles, and their successors the bishops of the ancient Church:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-I

Incidentally, the individual who left the comment on the original post never refuted or challenged the argument made therein. They do not even address the scriptural evidence given, they simply take one verse of Scripture out of context and use it to assert something that the text does not teach. They use the one scriptural passage to try to back-up a false Protestant tradition.

How to Answer the Anti-Catholic Question Barage

• I found this Protestant-Catholic exchange interesting. The following is from "Apologetics for the Masses", Issue 64; the electronic newsletter of John Martignoni's Bible Christiam Society [ www.biblechristiansociety.org ] (As usual, I highlight some points in bold, this is my emphasis not the author's)
  ____________________________________
  In the last issue, I gave you an email that Russell D., a Catholic radio listener, had sent to Doug S. at one of the Catholic radio stations, and I asked you to think about how you would respond to that email. I received a number of emails from folks with their responses, which I cannot respond to individually, but about which I will say were, for the most part, spot on.
  
  ...below is his email followed by my response to his email. I do not claim that my response is the absolute best response one could make, but I think it is an example of how you could respond to any email that has a number of arguments in it which go in all different directions…even if the writer of the email is more coherent than the example we have here. So, this is not so much an example of a response to someone who isn’t making much sense, as it is an example of a response to someone who comes at you from a number of different directions all at the same time.
  
  I will reproduce Russel’s email below and then follow it with my response and the thinking (strategies) behind my response.
  
  Challenge/Response/Strategy
  From: Russell D.
  To: Doug S.
  Subject: Re: [Fwd: spiritual warfare, 2006-09-16]
  
  Dear Doug:
  Sorry for the VERY late reply, almost a year later, and thank you for it, but as to not knowing what Catholics believe, having God’s Word that the Vatican has replaced with its own teaching like the Pharaisees did and for which Jesus condemned them, by the grace of God, I know far more about the TRUTH, that is Jesus, than Vaticanism and its adherants (since Rome is now officially secular one can no longer call it Romanism), also having John Paul II’s official Catechism and various other websites intelligently exposing the various errors of Vaticanism comparable and successor to the similarly erroneous Pharaisees and their sacerdotal system of Jesus’s day that the apostles abolished in the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, understanding what Jesus meant in John 19:30 when He said “It is finished!” meaning, as Hebrews makes clear the total fulfillment and termination of the Old Covenant i n Himself upon the tree, as the butterfly terminates the caterpillar, one of the earliest Christian symbols of the resurrection, including the Ten Commandments that no longer apply to the Christian as far too lacking compared to the infinitely higher standard demanded by the abiding resurrected Christ (e.g. Matthew 5, especially 21-44 and His replacing the Old Covenant with His own:
  1. enlarging/replacing commandment 6 (don’t murder) with love, 5:21-26,
  2. enlarging/replacing no committing adultery with no looking/thinking about it 5:27-30,
  3. enlarging/replacing unlimited divorce with its qualified abolition, 5:31-32,
  4. enlarging/replacing permitting oaths with their abolition, 5:33-37,
  5. enlarging/replacing revenge with grace, 5:38-42 and
  6. enlarging/replacing love of neighbor to love of enemy, 5:43-44).

Since Jesus wrote the Decalog and gave them to Moses as pre-Incarnate Christ, He has every right to rewrite them according to His perfect understanding of man’s further development in obeying Him more fully than previously. Those who still would hearken to the Ten Commandments are like the Judaizers Paul constantly fought who rejected His Lord Jesus and whom he finally anathemized in order to protect his converts from the Pharaisees’ evil ungodly religious sacerdotal system exalting man above God via cleverly disguised salvation by works, like the Reformers anathemized various doctrines of Rome to protect their converts to Christ from a similar evil ungodly religious sacerdotal system exalting man above God via cleverly disguised salvation by works.

As antidotes to this poison I recommend you visit http://www.aomin.org/ and http://www.monergism.com/ and especially http://www.desiringgod.org/ to see the true Christian faith presented versus Vaticanism’s illiterate sacerdotal system that depends on ignorance to sustain it, sadly including even the ignorance of its clergy, as the above websites prove.

You prayed God would bless my journey to “Truth,” but His Word in John, both 8:32 and 14:6, says that that is Jesus Himself versus an abstraction of modern philosophy, and the book of Hebrews further rejects the toleration of any other mediator than Christ, like Mary or the saints who, knowing both Hebrews and its divine author would condemn Vaticanism for the corrupt antiChrist system, even though there are many godly Catholics justified by faith alone as God and His Word require, though in their ignorance they fail to understand, like Sam Brownback, that in the eyes of Vaticanism, bound by Trent, they are anathema. Everyone who asks a saint for help has turned his back on Jesus and turned his back on and violated Hebrews, the very Word of God they claim to worship. 1 Timothy 2:5 “For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” and Hebrews, chapters 8, 9 & 12.

That anyone would turn to a mere saint for help, according to popular error and Vatican false teaching, instead of Jesus, as God commands in the Scriptures above, even if the saints could hear and act (which Abraham declares by the chasm fixed in Luke16 they cannot (meaning Catholics use Church teaching to reject God’s Word and Abraham’s, making them no children of Abraham, like it was with the Pharisees). One can only wonder how satan has led the Vatican astray with his various Marian apparitions the gullible who reject Christ accept without discernment: 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned by no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he shall instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
God bless you and may He move you to a blessed journey to Jesus Who is The Way, The Truth and The Life.
Russ D.
________________________________________________________

Response by John Martignoni:

"...If, however, you are capable of making an error when interpreting Scripture, then please give me a reason why I should believe your intepretation of Scripture vs. my interpretation of Scripture?

In other words, why should I believe what you say if you could indeed be wrong? ..."

Dear Russell,

Doug S. forwarded your email to me and asked me to respond. Forgive the delay in replying, but I’ve been doing a lot of traveling in the last several weeks and that always gets me behind.
Anyway, back to your email. You’ll have to forgive me, but I’m from Alabama and we’re not all that smart, so I had a bit of a time trying to follow what you were saying. So, what I would like to do, if you don’t mind, is just simplify the discussion a bit, assuming you’re open to discussing these matters.

Strategy/Comments: In other words, I’m going to “shift the paradigm,” so to speak. Instead of spending hours responding point-by-point to his rambling email, I’m going to basically ignore what he said and start off the argument where I choose to start it from. You can do this with pretty much anyone. You set the tone and let them follow.

If you are open to a discussion about Christ and truth and so forth, then I would like to start off by simply asking if you are infallible in what you teach? In other words, are you 100% certain that your interpretations of Scripture – from which you have derived everything you wrote below – are 100% accurate? Again, are you infallible in what you teach? Is it impossible for you to make an error in what you teach?

Strategy/Comments: I have never met a non-Catholic Christian who believes in the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. In other words, no man – the Pope or anyone else – is infallible in their view. If they believed the Pope was infallible, then the logical thing for them to do, would be to become Catholic. So, I think we can assume most, if not all, non-Catholic Christians do not believe in the doctrine of infallibility. Which means, when you ask someone if they are infallible, then you should get “No,” as an answer. Which means, that it is possible that they can make an error when it comes to matters of faith and morals. So, if there is the possibility that they can err in these areas, then it is possible that anything and everything they have said to you is in error. Make sure to point that out to them and do your best to get them to at least acknowledge the reasonability of that premise. Oh, one other thing – if you use a comm ent like, “If you’re really serious about finding truth,” or “If you’re really open to a discussion about Christ,” or something along those lines, then those who are serious about it, will more than likely respond. Those who aren’t, probably won’t.

I start there because you are asking us to believe what you have taught below. And, in what you have taught below in your email, there are a lot of words and thoughts that do not appear in Scripture. Which means you are interpreting Scripture, and asking us to believe in your interpretation for our salvation. I believe every single verse of Scripture that you quoted; however, I do not necessarily believe in your interpretation of those Scripture verses. So, it is very important to me to know if you are capable of making an error when interpreting Scripture or not.

Strategy/Comments: If you read Russel’s email, you will notice that the majority of it is composed of his words, not Scripture’s words. Which means that most of his email is either his interpretation of Scripture or his commentary on Scripture or on the Catholic Faith, but not Scripture itself. So, it is very important to let the other guy know that you agree 100% with every passage of Scripture that he quotes, but that you do not necessarily agree with his fallible, man-made, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture…after all, he’s not infallible. He’s trying to set the rules for the discussion – what he claims is true and by golly you have to just accept it as being true – but you will have none of that.

And, if you are not capable of making an error when you interpret Scripture, if you are indeed infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then please give me some evidence that I may believe such is the case. If, however, you are capable of making an error when interpreting Scripture, then please give me a reason why I should believe your intepretation of Scripture vs. my interpretation of Scripture? In other words, why should I believe what you say if you could indeed be wrong?

Strategy/Comments: In other words, show me where your name is in the Bible that I may believe that you are indeed infallible in your teaching. This paragraph contains one of the 4 main apologetics strategies that I teach: “But That’s My Interpretation!” Under Protestant theology, every person has not only the right, but the duty, to pick up the Bible and read it for themselves to decide what is true and what is false. What is true doctrine and what is false doctrine. So, under their theology, you have the right to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means. When someone tells you that you, as a Catholic, are wrong in your interpretation of the Bible, all you have to do is point out that their theology gives you the right to interpret the Bible for yourself; therefore, they cannot tell you that you are wrong. They can, at best, tell you that they disagree with your interpretation. But, they have to admit, since they are not infallib le, that your interpretation could possibly be right, and that their interpretation could possibly be wrong. Which, if they think about it, will hopefully plant some seeds in their minds about the need for an infallible authority.

Basically, I’m asking if you believe your interpretation of Scripture to be more valid than my interpretation of Scripture, and, if so, why? By what authority do you teach?

Strategy/Comments: A good question to always ask someone is: Are you an authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures? If yes, how so? Who gave you such authority? If no, then why should I believe your interpretation?

If you could answer those few simple questions, I think we might be able to have a very good discussion here.

Strategy/Comments: I have not heard back from Russell, and I probably never will. Or, if I do hear back from him, I can almost guarantee that he will not respond to my questions and will simply give me another rambling email full of sentence run ons. In which case I can simply respond, “Russell, I asked you a simple question: Are you infallible or not. If you cannot answer that simple question, there’s no reason to continue this discussion.” But, for those who are a bit more rational than Russell appears to be, a response like the one I gave to Russell could lead to some very interesting dialogue – dialogue in which you are setting the pace and in which you are asking a lot of questions. At the very least, it will keep you from wasting your time with those who simply want to talk at you, rather than those who want to talk with you.

God bless!
John Martignoni
Founder/President
Bible Christian Society
http://www.biblechristiansociety.org/

A brief catechism on eucharistic adoration (part 2)

A Brief Catechism on Eucharistic Adoration. CPDT

(Part 2 of 2)
5. Why does Jesus Christ remain with us in the humble form of bread and wine?

Who knows? We know that it is the nature of Jesus to be humble—“who, though he was in the form of God, did not equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7).

Of course, Jesus identified himself as the Bread of Life: ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst… I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh….Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him’ (6:35, 51, 53-56).

Remember that in the Old Testament, one could not even look upon the infinite glory of God lest one die! A child was once asked why God resides in the form of bread and wine—she very wisely said, ‘so that we would not be afraid of Him.’

6. What have the Popes had to say about the importance of Eucharistic adoration?

“On August 12 of [1999] speaking to half a million young people in Denver, Colorado, Pope John II told them:
‘Your pilgrimage will lead you to Christ present in the Holy Eucharist. Praying before the Blessed Sacrament exposed, you can open your hearts to Him, but you should especially listen to what he says to each of you. Christ’s special words to young people are the following:
Do not be afraid. (Mt. 10:31) and Come, follow me. (Mt. 19:21). Who knows what the Lord will ask of you young people of America, sons and daughters of Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania?...’ ” –Fr. John Hardon, S.J., 2000 address The Greatest Need in the World Today—Forming the Eucharistic Faith and Love of Children, full text available on
http://www.therealpresence.org/ .

Pope Benedict XVI has continued John Paul II’s desire to highlight the importance of adoring the Eucharist in his recent apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis:

As Saint Augustine put it: "nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; peccemus non adorando – no one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it." (191) In the Eucharist, the Son of God comes to meet us and desires to become one with us; eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of the eucharistic celebration, which is itself the Church's supreme act of adoration. (192) Receiving the Eucharist means adoring him whom we receive. Only in this way do we become one with him, and are given, as it were, a foretaste of the beauty of the heavenly liturgy. The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself. Indeed, "only in adoration can a profound and genuine reception mature. And it is precisely this personal encounter with the Lord that then strengthens the social mission contained in the Eucharist, which seeks to break down not only the walls that separate the Lord and ourselves, but also and especially the walls that separate us from one another."

7. How can Eucharistic adoration help encourage a growth in vocations?

If we teach children to place the Eucharist and prayer at the center of their lives then we will no longer have to see parishes closing and Clusters expanding due to a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. We might once again have enough nuns, monks, and brothers to minister at parishes and Catholic schools. We might once again have an increase in fruitful Catholic marriages and churches packed with families for Sunday Mass. In places where parishes foster Eucharistic adoration, young men begin to discern vocations to the priesthood and young women think about the religious life. I have seen this for myself. It really happens!

Related websites:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/
archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The%20sacraments
%20of%20Christian%20initiation
(See especially questions 271-294)

Pope Benedict XVI’s exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, paragraphs #66-69 on “Adoration and Eucharistic Devotion”:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_
exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_
sacramentum-caritatis_en.html#Adoration_and_eucharistic_devotion

* The Real Presence Association: http://www.therealpresence.org/
Real Presence Communications: http://www.realpresence.org/
Eucharistic Miracles: http://www.therealpresence.org/
eucharst/mir/a3.html

* Singles of the Eucharist: http://www.singlesoftheeucharist.org/
Swallowed Scroll: http://www.swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/

Catholic Q & A: Confirmation at what age?

Q:
One catechist has asked me:
My 7 yr old granddaughter is preparing to make her confirmation soon followed by 1st Communion. My daugter feels that this is too young an age to be confirmed but this is the policy of the Diocese so there is not much she can do. Any thoughts?

A:

Well, this is the policy of some bishops (bishops get to choose at what age confirmation will be administered in their diocese). The Church has traditionally identified age 7 as the general age of reason (the time at which young people begin to know right from wrong and can make moral decisions). In the recent history of the Latin rite Church this has been the age that First Communion is given (to be preceded by First Confession). The question, then, is why do some bishops want children to be confirmed before receiving first Communion?

Ideally, the order in which you receive the sacraments of initiation should be:
BAPTISM, --> CONFIRMATION (completes baptism)--> and then EUCHARIST (and you should receive first confession before holy communion).

That is the ideal order. That is why Eastern rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Christians baptize and confirm infants... and then give infants a small piece of the Eucharist. These 3 sacraments are what initiate us, and make us full members of the Church. Once again, ideally, we receive Holy Communion as the culmination of our full entrance into the community of believers--the body of Christ. This, of course, is the order that adult converts in the Latin rite receive the sacraments during the Easter Vigil.

The reason why we have delayed confirmation in the west was so that the Bishop could confirm more easily (larger groups, fewer times, etc as compared with individual baptisms) (CCC 1290). The west has always emphasized the fact that bishop should be the preferred administer of Confirmation because this expresses a Christian's tie to the apostolic unity of the Church (the bishop--a successor to the apostles--being the head of each local church, i.e. diocese) (CCC 1312). This practice of delayed confirmation has assumed a theological significance of preparing young Catholics through catechesis so that they can make an adult decision for their faith.

In the East, priests generally confirm infants immediately after baptism (they use the term "chrismation" for this annointing).

What are the benefits of confirmation at an earlier age: your granddaughter will already receive the graces from Confirmation. She will receive a greater outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and be fully initiated into the Church. These are real graces that will help her live her Christian life.

The drawback: she will not be able to make an "adult" choice to be Confirmed. (Also, without this "goal" of completing their sacraments, some families fail to continue to see that their children are catechized. This, of course, is a wrong way to view catechesis.)

However, that being said,...from my experience, many teens who approach Confirmation are not really in a good mind set to make an adult decision about Confirmation anyways. Many times, at the age of 15, they can be rebellious against their parents and religion in general. They can be so preocupied with their friends, social life, and sports that religion is not important to them anyways. They can be so influenced by the world that they are not able to see clearly the beauty and need for God's grace through this special sacrament.

So, all in all,... it might not be bad to receive Confirmation at an earlier age. The trick is that your daughter will have to work hard to keep teaching her child and forming her in the faith as she grows up. Prayer and a regular practice of the faith has to start in the home... and continue.

Catholic Q & A: HAVE YOU BEEN SAVED?

This is the first of a series of questions about the Faith that we commonly encounter. I have taken this paritcular question/answer from the Dead Theologians Society website (www.DeadTheologiansSociety.com)


APOLOGETICS 101

Q. How should I respond to someone who asks me if I've been saved, or born again?

A: Answer with a resounding, "Yes!" Tell them that it is through Baptism that you were saved, just as the Bible says in 1 Peter 3:20 and that it is through Baptism, water and the Spirit, that you are "born again," just as the Bible says in John 3:5.

Many Protestants believe that they are saved by making a single act of faith at a single point in time in their lives. Nowhere does Scripture say such a thing. Catholics believe that salvation is a process which begins with our Baptism and continues throughout our lifetimes, just as the Bible teaches us.

Many places in Scripture talk about how one is "saved", but not one of them says we are saved by one act of faith at just one point in time. Again, 1 Peter 3:20 says that we are saved by baptism. Hebrews 12:14 says that we will not see the Lord unless we are holy, and that we must strive for this holiness. Matthew 6:14-15, it says we must forgive others or we will not be forgiven. Can you attain salvation if God hasn't forgiven you? No! So, our forgiving others is necessary for our salvation.

John 6:54 says that we will have eternal life by doing something... eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In Matthew 19, verses 16 and 17, Jesus is asked directly what one must do to have eternal life. Did He say, accept me into your heart once and that's it? No! Jesus said to keep the commandments and you will have life.

Yes, as Catholics we are born again. And, as Catholics we believe that we were saved, as Paul says in Romans 8:24; that we are being saved, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18; and that we will be saved, as Paul says in Romans 5:9-10, provided we persevere and keep our eyes on the prize. Salvation is a process, just as Catholics believe, and just as the Bible clearly teaches.

For links to more apologetics sites that handle such questions about the Catholic faith, check out my earlier post:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/
what-is-apologetics.html

Feast of the Immaculate Conception: Honoring Mary, the New Eve and Mother of the Redeemer!

This evening we celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

From the new Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

96. What does the “Immaculate Conception” mean?

God freely chose Mary from all eternity to be the Mother of his Son. In order to carry out her mission she herself was conceived immaculate. This means that, thanks to the grace of God and in anticipation of the merits of Jesus Christ, Mary was preserved from original sin from the first instant of her conception.

“God freely chose Mary from all eternity to be the Mother of his Son”: Did you ever think that maybe Mary was just randomly selected at a young age to be the mother of the Incarnate Son of God? Not likely. Just like us, God the Father chose Mary “before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Ephesians 1:3-4). God had predestined all of us for some role in his plan of salvation. He knew us before we were created (Ps 139). If God also would have chosen a woman to freely say “yes” to his plan of salvation… don’t you think that He would have put a great deal of thought into how this woman would be created? How beautiful would you create a woman who was to be “the mother of the Savior”?

“In order to carry out her mission she herself was conceived immaculate”: Mary’s mission was to be the one who would say “yes” to God’s plan of salvation. Remember, God never forces his love upon the creatures that he made free. I once heard it put rather bluntly—God would not “rape” humanity. He would not force the incarnation against our will. He desired our free assent. It was in the disobedience of Eve (which led to the disobedience of Adam) that led to the first Fall. In order to redeem the human race, God posed the question of his Incarnation to a New Eve...a new representaive for the entire human race.

It is because Mary said “yes” (her “fiat”—"let it be done to me according to your word") that Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God (and “the New Adam” see Romans 5:12-21), entered the world, and eventually redeemed the human race by his obedience to the Father on the Cross (reversing the disobedience of Adam).

Once again, in order to be most free to say yes or no, God created Mary free from the stain of Original Sin. Without such a burden she was completely free in her will to obey God… she was not a slave to concupiscence (the tendency that we all have towards sin—even after baptism).

“thanks to the grace of God and in anticipation of the merits of Jesus Christ": If Mary was created free from the stain of Original Sin does that mean that she still needed a savior? Yes, without a doubt! The Immaculate Conception was a unique and extraordinary GRACE from God… a gift to Mary. And, it was given “in anticipation of the merits of Jesus Christ.” This is tricky for us to contemplate, but remember that God is eternal—outside of time. There is no past, present, or future with God. He sees everything as an eternal now. God could apply graces won by Jesus on the Cross to Mary at the time of her conception (before the sacrifice on the cross occurred in history). He is God—He is not limited by categories of time as we are.

Scriptural evidence

The Scriptures that are mentioned most in relation to this dogma of the Immaculate Conception are Luke 1:28 where Mary is addressed by a name (which expresses a characteristic quality, an identity) as “full of grace” (Greek: kecharitomene). [this is a better translation than what you find in the New American Bible, for example, “favored one”]. In addition, the Church points back to the proto-evangelium (first announcement of the Gospel) in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.’ This is directed to the devil and Eve. However, it also points forward to the woman who whose offspring (Jesus) would do battle with the devil and his offspring. For this woman to be at total enmity (hatred) with the devil, she had to be completely free from the stain of Original sin.

The Bible also has other clues to the Immaculate Conception. The Ark of the Covenant also is a “type” that foreshadows and points ahead to Mary who is the "New Ark of the Covenant" (compare Luke 1:26-44 with Exodus 40:34-35 and 2 Sam 6:9-16). The Ark of the Covenant was the holiest object in the Old Testament. It was beautiful box created of precious materials… it was to be spotless in construction. [See Exodus 25 where God gave meticulous instructions for constructing the Ark: it was to be made of acacia wood—supposedly incorruptible—plated inside and outside with pure gold, it had to be kept free from all impurity and profanation. In 2 Samuel 6:6-7 God struck Uzzah dead because he dared to touch the Ark!.]

The Ark held the tablets of the 10 Commandments (the Word of God), the manna (bread from heaven) that fed the Israelites in the desert, and Aaron’s staff. Mary was the spotless carrier of Jesus—the Word of God Incarnate, and the Bread of Life (John 6). If such care was taken in the creation of a pure and perfect Ark of the Covenant, how would Mary the Mother of God be created? How pure would God create the woman who would bear the Divine Redeemer?

Do not forget to be familiar with the dogma of the Assumption of Mary:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2006/08/maria-assumpta-est-
mary-is-assumed_14.html

What did the ancient Church fathers teach about Mary's holiness?:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm and
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm

More notes on how to explain and defend belief in the Immaculate Conception:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_
Conception_and_Assum.asp

St. Anselm on the Immaculate Conception:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/108/Virgin_Mary
__Mother_of_the_Re_created_World____St._Anselm.html

Is the Mass a sacrifice?

The following is a Q & A which was posted on Zenit.org:

Scriptural Basis of the Mass as Sacrifice

ROME, SEPT. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Where are we commanded to have a sacrifice in our formal worship of God? Protestants, for the most part, worship with singing, some collective prayers and long sermons. Where in the Bible does it say that proper worship contains a sacrifice? Also a review of where in the Bible the Mass parts come from and why we include them in Mass would be useful. Again, it will come down to convincing a "sola scriptura" believer that Scripture says we must do it. Any help would be appreciated. -- J.C., Leavenworth, Kansas

A: A full answer to this question exceeds the possibilities of this column. There are, however, many worthy resources available online. Web sites such as Catholic Answers
(www.catholic.com) contain, among other elements, Father Mitch Pacwa's "Is the Mass a Sacrifice?" (see for example http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp)

The Old Testament contains many divine commands to perform sacrifices. All of the complex liturgical rituals described in Leviticus, for example, are ostensibly commanded by God through Moses.

Perhaps the most important sacrifices commanded by God in the Old Testament were those in which the Almighty sealed a covenant. This includes the one with Noah after the flood, the pact made with Abraham, and above all the sacrifice of the paschal lamb in Egypt, a covenant that was completed 50 days later with another sacrifice at Sinai.

It was this covenant that was renewed each year at the Passover by means of a sacrificial ritual that was a "memorial" ("zikkaron" in Hebrew). It was not a mere recalling but rather one that ritually made present and ratified and renewed the saving events that had occurred so many years before.

For Catholics, the central divine command to worship, using a sacrifice, came from the lips of Christ when he told the apostles at the Last Supper, "Do this as in memory of me."

In doing so, he specifically recalled the Jewish Passover as a memorial and applied it to himself and his upcoming sacrifice on the cross, with a totally new and definitive meaning.

In this context Our Lord's words "This is my body, which is given for you" (Luke 22:19) correspond to those of Exodus 12:27: "[This ritual] is the sacrifice of the Passover in honor of Yahweh" when he freed Israel from slavery in Egypt.

The words "For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28) echo those of Exodus 24:8 when Moses says: "This … is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you."

We are thus before a unique sacrifice, the memorial sacrament of Christ's paschal sacrifice. Through it he has brought salvation to all mankind and sealed a new and eternal covenant in his blood.

Although the apostles probably did not immediately grasp the full meaning of Christ's gesture in the cenacle, their reflection on his words and actions and their familiarity with the Passover as a memorial quickly led them to understand that Our Lord had commanded them to repeat the ritual that he had established.

They understood that this ritual was the definitive paschal sacrifice which made present Christ's unique sacrifice on Calvary and in doing so ratified and renewed the new and eternal covenant.

Therefore, God has commanded us to worship with a sacrifice, his own unique sacrifice.

All other forms of ritual sacrifice have fallen by the wayside as Christ's sacrifice has an infinite worth that absorbs all the values and intentions expressed in the ancient sacrifices.

The Mass is a sacrifice insofar as it is the memorial that ritually renews and makes present to us, in time, Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice on the cross.

The personal prayers and sacrifices of Christians reach their fulfillment when they are united to Christ's sacrifice through full, devout and active participation at Mass.

As to where in the Bible the various parts of the Mass are found, the answer is less clear. In a way it is everywhere and nowhere.

Everywhere, because the entire Mass is animated by Scripture. Almost all of the prayers and texts have a scriptural background and the entire rite is developed as a fruit of Christ's command to continue his actions.

Nowhere, in the sense that we will not find explicit commands to say, "Sing the Sanctus after the preface." Rather, the ritual has developed over time as a response to the scriptural exhortation to pray, to repeat the sacrifice, etc.

In this case even a Protestant would have to accept that the details of his worship (songs, psalms and long sermons, etc.) are found in the Bible only in very general terms.