The Christian Vanguard

 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. 

 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...

No. The quotation some people have in mind when they think that he did is the following.  But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness. The quotation from B16 is take...

It is a common anti Catholic argument to point out that Pope St. Gregory (540-604 AD) denied the title of "Universal Bishop." If the Pope himself denied the title, then how can the Pope claim to have universal jurisdiction over the entire church? This argument has been around since at least the reformation, as we see it in John Calvin's Institutes , and it still made today by people like James White, Geisler and MacKenzie. So what exactly did Pope St. Gregory say? In a few different places, he says things like,  None of my predecessors has consented to bear this profane title, for when a Patriarch adopts for himself the title of 'universal' the title of Patriarch suffers discredit. No Christian, then, has the desire to adopt a title that would cause discredit to his brethren. And  Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called Univers...

A protestant friend of mine was expressing his worry of the term "heresy" being thrown around too loosely among his other protestant friends. This is a fair worry. Even within Catholicism, the word gets tossed around too easily among the laity, in my opinion. However, there is a difference between my friend and I: our criteria for what counts as heresy. My protestant friend said, "If I am not contradicting any of the ecumenical councils, I am not a heretic." I pointed out he denies the Council of Trent. His response was that Trent was not ecumenical. "Which Orthodox bishops ratified Trent?" he asked me, which of course isn't really a question, but an argument. He believes that enough Bishops have to be present in order for a council to be ecumenical, and since the Orthodox were obviously not present in Trent, Trent cannot be ecumenical. This makes some sense. The big 7 ecumenical councils that all Christians believe, even the Protestants, were ratifi...

We talked about the Papacy and Church authority in class. Three videos.

I was having an exchange with a Protestant friend of mine on Facebook on whether Peter is the rock Jesus says He will build His church upon. I took the time to copy some choice quotations from the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys    which I have been meaning to keep on file somewhere because they're useful, but I finally managed it, and I am copying them here for future reference.  William Hendriksen, Th.D from Princeton, a Reformed Protestant Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary writes, “The meaning is, ‘You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.’ Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, you are Kepha,’ and on this kepha I will build my church.’ Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” - New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, pg 647 Even some Lutherans, the original Protestants, h...

I have seen on Facebook many Catholics calling Pope Francis by his birth name, Bergoglio. This seems disrespectful. Popes change their names as God changed Simon to Peter. To call Pope Francis "Bergoglio" is like saying they do not recognize his Papacy. They certainly do not do this out of affection. Even if he were a sinner worse than Judas, we should still love him. And we should still call him Pope Francis. 

I participated in a debate two nights ago. It was on the infallibility of the pope. The podcast isn't up yet, but here is my opening speech. When the podcast is up, I'll give my thoughts on the entire thing.

While this has been, so far, a negative review, I do want to say, to start off a critical look at chapter three, that I’m quite glad Ferguson recognizes, “Any leader in any group who says he is not tempted [to enjoy the limelight and praise] is either out of touch with his own heart or dishonest.” The famous Lord Acton dictum is, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So I am quite happy with the way this has started.