The Christian Vanguard

 A common claim among Christians who deny Original Sin is that the doctrine in some way originated with St. Augustine. St. Augustine lived between 354 and 430 AD. There are, however, texts that predate St. Augustine that do refer to the doctrine of Original Sin. For example, you have in Sirach 25:24, the following verse, "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die."  Sirach is considered canon by Catholics, but suppose for the sake of argument it is not. It would still be true that Jews at the time thought this, since Sirach was written around 180 BC. That's still 500 years before St. Augustine. What does this verse show? It shows that Eve's sin is the cause of our death. Does it mean just physical death? Looking at the context of this verse, which begins at 25:13, it is about the spiritual dangers of an evil woman. So it is more likely here that it speaks of spiritual death, if not physical as well. And to be caused by our original parents to b...

 Todays gospel reading at Mass was John 21. The dialogue between Peter and Jesus is something to take note of in Papal discussions because of what Jesus tells Peter to do. The NIV, a common Protestant translation, and even many Catholic translations, lose some of nuance from the Greek which sheds light on Papal claims.  Looking specifically at v16, many translations translate the word "poimaino" as "tend" even though it literally says "shepherd". Blue letter Bible has this. And the same word is used in Matthew 2:6, in which the shepherd rules over the people of Israel. This is a strong claim, and not just one that means Peter is going to be a mere pastor. Peter is literally ruling. 

It is a common Catholic talking point that there seems to be no essential definition of Protestantism. It reduces to a kind of relativism, thus demonstrating the need for a magisterium. And the common reply is something like, "We are united in those doctrines necessary for salvation" or that "We are united on the obvious doctrines". Sometimes you hear "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things."  It doesn't escape the issue being pressed. You ask different Protestants what's necessary for salvation and you'll get different answers. "Believe in Jesus." But which Jesus? The Jesus of Mormonism? I think not. "Sola Fide." Okay, does that include baptism being necessary for salvation? Protestants will disagree on that. Which is exactly the problem we're trying to highlight.  What of the "obvious" or "clear" issues like the Nicene Creed? Or the Trinity? Obviously you can...

 An argument that I found convincing in accepting the Papacy is the connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. I wont rehash the argument here, but it was pointed out to me that the way the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Old Testament, called the LXX, translates Is 22:22 is notably different from the Hebrew. There are times this happens, and the New Testament is aware of this and continues to cite the LXX anyway.  The NIV translates the Hebrew version of Is 22:22 as follows, "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." Pretty straightforward. You can clearly hear the parallels Jesus is making in Matthew 16:19.  However, the LXX translates Is 22:22 as follows, "And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him."  Before we touch on the significance of the difference, lets explain what's going on. "The key t...