Monday, March 14, 2005

Unity of Command ... not just a good idea, but biblically established

On the Does the Bible have errors in it? blog, Wray Davis wrote the following comment:

... the concept that God has selected a single man to be his ultimate voice after Christ ascended - I don't see any biblical reason to support such a belief.

Let me tell you why I believe the Bible supports sacerdotal unity, that is, the notion that God selected a single man to be his voice, to be the Vicar of Christ.

As a military guy, I know this priniciple as "unity of command." Unit cohesion and unity of purpose quickly fails without unity of command, especially in times of battle. And make no mistake, the Church has always been in battle with the forces that would attempt to destroy her.

The Catholic Church more appropriately calls this "sacerdotal unity." It essentially means that there will be one pastor in charge of the Church. It is not only a good idea for unit cohesion and unity of purpose in times of battle, but this pastoral or sacerdotal unity is precisely how Christ built his Church. Catholics see no biblical reason to presume that Christ's Church is no longer hierarchically under one pastor as it was in the 1st century.

There are many types within the OT that foreshadow truths expounded within the NT. For example, Paul calls Adam a "type" of Christ. This is called the typological sense of the OT. The Davidic Kingship, for example, is a type of Christ's Kingship, and the Davidic Kingdom foreshadows the Kingdom of God under the eternal King, Jesus Christ.

Let's look at some types that give us clues as to how Christ set up his kingdom on earth.

The family is the smallest unit established by God. It is led by one guy, the Father.

The extended family, for example that of Noah, was led by one patriarch, Noah.

The tribe is led by one guy, for example, the tribe of Abraham is led by Abraham.

The nation is led by one guy. A OT example is that of the nation of Israel, led by the one guy, Moses. It is interesting to note that when Korah attempted to rebel against this Divinely established construct, asserting that everyone in the nation was holy and that they ought to be able to go to God withing having to use Moses as mediator, God disagreed. You can read more about his rebellion in Numbers ch. 16.

The kingdom is led by one guy, the King. An OT example is that of King David. Now, let's take a closer look at this Davidic kingdom. The kindgom had many ministers. Yet, there was just one guy, the one who held the keys of the kingdom who was the chief minister, given the authority to speak on behalf of the king, to be the ONE GUY to lead all the other ministers, the PRIME MINISTER. Again, unity of command is presented as Scriptural in the governance of every unit, from those as small as the family to those as large as the kingdom, to even include the body of ministers for that kindgom, led by one guy, the chief minister.

Are these not OT types for the NT Kingdom? According to Catholicism and even many well-respected Protestant bible scholars, the answer is yes. Jesus placed one guy to be his chief apostle, giving him the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth that which will be bound and loosed in heaven. Many Protestant scholars rightly conclude that Peter was the chief apostle of the NT Church. However, they fail to take the next step and draw the necessary conclusion as to how the universal Church ought to be governed--by one chief minister--the successor of Peter.

Protestant bible scholar F. F. Bruce, writes:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about
to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward
." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page
Protestant M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," "binding" and "loosing" from Matthew 16:19:

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the
promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things...Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church....The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and
apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the primary disciple [Peter] the authority to teach in his name -- to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church.
" (Boring in The New Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 346)
Protestant Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed):

"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare in The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355-356)
Protestant Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the 'keys of the Kingdom of heaven' are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as 'binding and loosing' ....the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding" and 'loosing' refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding....For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter...Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer in The Good News according to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 343)
Protestant R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --

"The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e. relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper... but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." (R.T. France, as cited in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)
Protestants William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, commenting on Matthew 16:19:

"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.' The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)
The Evangelical New Bible Commentary states on Isaiah 22:

"Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3...Godward he is called my servant (20)...manward he will be a father to his community (21)...The key...of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22...emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).... Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8)." (NBC [Intervarsity, 1994], page 647)
Joachim Jeremias in an extended passage from Kittel's Greek standard:

"...the key of David is now (3:7) the key which Christ has in His hands as the promised shoot of David. This is the key to God's eternal palace. The meaning of the description is that Christ has unlimited sovereignty over the future world. He alone controls grace and judgment. He decides irrevocably whether a man will have access to the salvation of the last age or whether it will be witheld from him...Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of David...This is confirmed by the fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them. But in what sense is the power of the keys given to Peter? ....the handing over of the keys is not just future. It is regarded as taking place now... There are numerous instances to show that in biblical and later Jewish usage handing over the keys implies full authorisation. He who has the keys has full authority. Thus, when Eliakim is given the keys of the palace he is appointed the royal steward (Is. 22:22, cf. 15). When Jesus is said to hold the keys of death and Hades (Rev. 1:18) or the key of David (3:7), this means that He is, not the doorkeeper, but the Lord of the world of the dead and the palace of God...Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side control, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7...Mt. 23:13 leads us a step further. This passage is particularly important for an understanding of Mt. 16:19 because it is the only one in the NT which presupposes an image not found elsewhere, namely, that of the keys of the kingdom (royal dominion) of God...Mt. 23:13 shows us that the scribes of the time of Jesus claimed to possess the power of the keys in respect of this kingdom...They exercised this by declaring the will of God in Holy Scripture in the form of preaching, teaching and judging. Thereby they opened up for the congregation a way into this acting as spiritual leaders of the congregation....As Lord of the Messianic community He thus transferred the keys of God's royal dominion, i.e. the full authority of proclamation, to Peter...In Rabb. lit. binding and loosing are almost always used in respect of halahkic decisions...The scribe binds (declares to be forbidden) and looses (declares to be permitted)...In Mt. 16:19, then, we are to regard the authority to bind and to loose as judicial. It is the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and to promise forgiveness to believers." (Jeremias from Kittel/Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 748-751)
So from my study of Scripture and ancient Christianity, Christ did indeed place one guy in charge, his chief apostle or "steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth." Catholics understand this guy to have been Peter, and Catholics continue in union with the chair of Peter to this day. Such champions of orthodoxy as St. Athanasius and the other bishops at the synod of Sardica, writing a letter to the pope, described the See of Peter as the "head" of the Church. Later, the schismatic Greek Church would re-interpret this to mean something other than jurisdictional authority. Yet, the bishops of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon well before such re-interpretations affirmed in a letter to Pope Leo I, that they believe him to be the successor of Peter, given "custody of the vine by the Savior." They submitted the canons to him for ratification--a clear sign of jurisdicational primacy over the entire Church. Catholics have no reason to conclude this biblical ecclesiastical governance was in any way revised by Christ after Peter's death.

God bless,



Blogger Wray Davis said...

Dave -

Much of your recent posting focuses on the idea of unity, particularly "unity of command".

I can definitely appreciate the idea of unity - where there are two truly competing ideas, one must necessarily be wrong, and where they are not truly competing, there is unnecessary strife and dissention.

But unity cannot supercede truth. It is better to be alone and right than part of the crowd and wrong. If this were not the case, Jesus never would never have encouraged his followers to buck the traditions of the Pharisees. If unity were more important than truth, would you be amenable to the Roman Catholic church submitting to the authority of the Patriarch?

If unity were more important than truth, wouldn't a dictatorship be better than a democracy? The problem with dictatorships is that they are too likely to be run by a tyrant. Democracies are prone to the clownish ravings of individuals, but they are also the least likely to stray from the truths. A democracy is the best of a bunch of bad options.

You mention that there was one king of Israel, but recall also that the people demanded a king against the wishes of their God, and He warned them that a king would lead them astray. God's preferred plan was to have the people of Israel continue as individuals and a nation, with the body of priests as intermediaries.


What was it that gave Peter authority over the church in the first place? As I understand it, there are two passages, the first in Matt. 16, the second in John 21. The latter of these is better understood as Jesus re-instating Peter after he had denied Christ, and certainly does not give him any authority or tasks that Jesus did not elsewhere assign to his disciples in general.

The former is perhaps more individual to Peter, but it doesn't grant him any specific authority. More, it sounds like Jesus is saying that Peter will be central in the foundation of the church, a fact that none of us will argue with. It is different to say that Peter will be one of his best evangalists and that Peter will be the chief and most authoritative of his apostles.

Jesus often spoke in parables and riddles, but on the key points he was typically very clear: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' The second is this, '(U)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Arguably, the primacy of Peter is one of the most central tenets of the Catholic Church - if it had been equally important to Jesus, would he not have said something along the lines of "Peter - you shall be the greatest of my disciples, and you shall be the head of my church"? Maybe nothing so direct, but certainly nothing as vague and unassuming as the passages listed above.

If the apostles had believed Peter to be the head of the church and his decisions to be infallible, would Peter have bowed to Paul's authority when Peter decided that you had to be a Jew to be a Christian?


Even if we were to accept Peter as the head of the church, why should we assume that the position is passed on to whomever sits in his seat after him. Christ didn't mention anything about that. If the Holy Spirit were electing an infallible voice to lead the church, could He not have done it in any of the Cathedrae? That the position passed geographically lends itself to the analogy I laid out in your previous post.

9:49 PM  
Blogger itsjustdave1988 said...


You said:
"I can definitely appreciate the idea of unity"

That's good, because Christ, who is Truth, desired it as well, and ensured his Church would be the "pillar and foundation of truth" forever.

You said:
"But unity cannot supercede truth."

It doesn't. Nor is there a false dichotomy between the two. Sacerdotal unity was established by Christ, not Constantine, as Sacred Scripture and pre-Nicene patristic evidence makes clear.

You said:
"It is better to be alone and right than part of the crowd and wrong."

There are many who thought they were right, when they are actually wrong. The history of the Church is littered with heretics who thought they were right. In fact I don't know of one heretic who thought he was wrong and the Church was right. Korah and his followers thought he was right when he protested against Moses(Num 16; Jude 3). Merely thinking you are right isn't necessarily sufficient for rebellion, however.

On the contrary, truth and unity come from Christ through the apostles that he appointed, from the bishops that apostles appointed, and subsits in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. "No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."(2 Pet 1:20)

Sacerdotal unity began in the first century, with St. Peter as the chief apostle. Your assent to this fact is irrelevant to its veracity. Nor is this just Catholic interpretation, but Protestant and Orthodox as well. Bruce Metzger, one of the most respected non-Catholic bible scholars comments on the "keys of the kingdom" in his New Oxford Annotated Bible saying that Peter was the chief apostle. Catholics have no reason to believe God changed this construct after Peter's death. Why do non-Catholics believe this to have changed?

According to Scripture, when other apostle's died, like Judas, the apostles appointed another to his office. According to historical evidence from the 1st century, the apostles appointed bishops to teach and govern.

From St. Clement, contemporary of the apostles and Bishop of Rome, ca AD 80:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3).

One need not ASSUME that this successorship continued past Peter, as the evidence of history TELLS US this continued with the successors of Peter.

First century bishop, St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), who learned Christianity from St. John the Apostle, and was Bishop of Antioch from AD 70 until being martyred in Rome, described the Church in Rome as that which HOLDS THE PRESIDENCY. (cf. Ignatius, Ltr to Romans, ca AD 110). The Church in Rome presided in the first century, as witnessed by an EASTERN Bishop of Antioch and contemporary of the apostles.

In the second century, St. Irenaeus says of the Church in Rome, BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGIN (not secular influence), it was necessary that ALL OF THE FAITHFUL throughout the world agree with the Church in Rome. He wrote (ca AD 189):

"... we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome ... that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. WITH THAT CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN, ALL THE CHURCHES MUST AGREE [Latin "CONVENIRE AD" or literally "COME TOGETHER AT ROME"], THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid. 3:3:2).

"The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. ... To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (Against Heresies 3:3:3)."

Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly continues to trace the papacy through the centuries as Ireneaus did for the early Church. The historical list of popes can be found here:

Pope John Paul II is the historical successor of Peter. It is this same See of Peter that St. Cyprian in the 3rd century says is the "the principal Church — the source of sacerdotal unity." Rome presides. It is where all the Churches must come together. It is "from whence our authority derives." (Tertullian, 3rd century).

This was the teaching of Christianity well before Constantine permitte Christianity to be legal in his empire.

11:23 AM  
Blogger itsjustdave1988 said...


You said:
"If unity were more important than truth, wouldn't a dictatorship be better than a democracy?"

Again, I reject the false dichotomy you intend to create between truth and unity. God desires both and both are present in His Holy Church on earth.

And yes, monarchy, not dictatorship, is better than democracy. Plato contends this as well, so long as philosophers become kings or kings become philosophers. When you are ill, do you resort to democracy to diagnose and treat your illness?

Catholics do live in a monarchy, and our philosopher-king is also our God. It is indeed a better government than a democracy.

11:30 AM  
Blogger itsjustdave1988 said...


You said:
"God's preferred plan was to have the people of Israel continue as individuals and a nation, with the body of priests as intermediaries."

Your notion of God's preferred plan is unconvincing, given that he did indeed appoint a King to rule eternally. Christ, in my opinion, was "plan A" not "plan B." Christ the King appointed men and said to them, "He who hears you, hears me." God did not establish a democratic Church.

The father is the single head of the family just as the father is the single head of a parish, just as the father is the single head of the diocese, and the father (Gk 'papa' or pope) is the single head of the universal Church.

Likewise, Moses was the single head of his ecclesial nation, having single heads responsible for each tribe, with single heads responsible for each family.

Kingship is a fact of God's ecclesastical contruct, and while that kingdom had always had many ministers, there was always a chief minister, the "keeper of the keys," the head of all the other ministers in the household of the Lord. Not all Christians have the same gifts nor do they have the same responsibility and authority.

For example, we are to pray for one another. Yet when one is sick among us, we are to go get the PRIEST to pray over him, so that he is healed and his sins forgiven. (cf. James 5:14-15). It seems that the laity does not have the same role or authority as the ministerial priesthood. Each is given gifts, but not all the gifts of the Holy Spirit is the same, nor the role as stewards of those gifts.

The Church of the NT was hierarchical. Some are given Holy Orders that others are not given (cf. Acts 20:28). Note that this is not a self-appointment, as we see in many Protestant sects, who simply go to college and obtain a certificate of "ordination." This is more reminiscent of Simon Magus attempting to buy the ability to lay hands upon another as the apostles were doing. On the contrary, in the NT, it was not a college but APOSTLES and those APPOINTED by the APOSTLES that could ordain and appoint presbyters (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; Tit 1:5). Without apostolic successorship, there is no Christian ordination. Without apostolic ordination, Protestant sects commit the sin or Korah's rebellion which is warned against in Jude 11.

The primacy of Peter among the apostles is well described in Sacred Scripture, and this primacy of the See of Peter continues to preside today over Christ's Church on earth, as had occured since since the first century.

12:01 PM  
Blogger itsjustdave1988 said...


You said:
"If the apostles had believed Peter to be the head of the church and his decisions to be infallible, would Peter have bowed to Paul's authority when Peter decided that you had to be a Jew to be a Christian?"

Firstly, your characterization pf Scripture is rather poor in my opinion. Peter never taught that you had to be a Jew to be a Christian. If he did, please show me where.

If you are thinking of his dining with Gentiles until the circumsion party from James came to town, then you are referring to Peter's actions, not his teachings. Infallibility, as I said earlier, is not impeccability. Peter was not perfect or sinless. The Gospel message that he taught, however, was without error.

In fact, Scripture says that there was still much dispute about circumcision UNTIL PETER DECIDED THE MATTER DEFINITIVELY. In council at Jerusalem, after Peter spoke, the dispute ended. Why? Because Peter was chosen by God among the apostles to be the voice of God to the gentiles. Observe,

Acts 15:7 "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago GOD MADE CHOICE AMONG US, THAT THE GENTILES BY MY MOUTH SHOULD HEAR THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL, AND BELIEVE."

After prefacing his decision by reminding the others of his UNIQUE Divine authority among the apostles, Peter pronounces the decision that Christians need not be circumcised. AFTER WHICH, THE DISPUTE ENDED. "Then all the multitude kept silence" (Acts 15:12).

Then James, against his original position and in agreement with Peter (what choice did he have?), prepared the letter to be sent to the Church. Why James? Because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, from whence the circumcision party came, as Paul tells us.(Gal 2:12).

So, I don't see Peter bowing to Paul as you seem to indicate. On the contrary, he made a definitive decree, a papal pronouncement that seemed good to him and to the Holy Spirit.

Futhermore, you seem to still lack an understanding of the doctrine of infallibility. It is not impeccability. Peter, in his attempt to be all things to all people (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23), could have certainly acted hypocritically, as Paul charges. Yet, he did not teach heresy as though it were a formal dogma of Catholicism. Neither has any other pope in over 2000 years. The pope can certainly be rebuked by anyone in the Church for his poor example, and even for his heterodox speculative theology. Pope Honorius I, for example, was formally condemened by a subsequent pope for his poor defense of the faith when it came to the heresy of Monothetilism. Pope John XXII was rebuked by many in the Church for his incorrect yet speculative theology regarding the beatific vision. Pope John Paul II has been criticized by many Catholics for kissing the Koran.

Pauline-like criticism of papal actions and even non-definitive theology is found throughout Catholic history. Some criticisms have been correct, as against Pope John XXII's incorrect teaching regarding the beatific vision. And some criticisms have been incorrect, as St. Cyprian's critique of Pope St. Stephen's teaching regarding the validity of heretical baptisms.

Non-Catholics have often tried to use Paul's critique of Peter to disprove the doctrine of infallibility. All they end up doing is showing the truth of the following words of Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing....

The hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we would probably hate the Church a thousand times more than they do."

2:56 PM  
Blogger itsjustdave1988 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home