"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

What did the earliest Christians believe about Peter's Primacy and whether his "See" was in Rome?  Why not let them speak for themselves?  Here is just a tidbit for starters: "The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute [Mt 17:27], quickly seized and comprehended the saying...” (Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be saved? 21, AD 200) Quoting Mt 16:18-19, Tertulian rebukes , “What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon YOU, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to YOU the keys.” ( emphasis in original , Tertullian, Modesty 21, AD 220) Cyprian of Carthage explains likewise as Tertullian and Clement, and emphasizes , “Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church a...

As we close the 6-part series on Boettner’s List, we look at several items revolving around the Papacy and things that, on the surface and only seeing what Boettner provides, appear to be scandalous…such as indulgences, forbidding Bibles and “the Cup”...even condemning Public Schools?!?! As before, to keep the length within reason, I’ll let Mr. Ariss’ examinations speak for themselves and add my own comments in blue where I feel more clarification is needed. Everything in black ink, from here on, is quoted directly from Wayne Ariss (with his generous permission…see link in the very first part of this series) with the bolded text being the direct quote from Boettner’s list : “ 12. Title of Pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas....607 . Boettner apparently wishes to give the impression that the office of Pope was invented by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas in 607, and conferred upon Boniface. The actual facts are not so simplistic. To begin with, the t...

Continuing where we left off in Part 4 we move now to some Church disciplines and touch on the topic of Authority and Sacramental Confession. As before, to keep the length within reason, I’ll let Mr. Ariss’ examinations speak for themselves and add my own comments in blue where I feel more clarification is needed. Everything in black ink, from here on, is quoted directly from Wayne Ariss (with his generous permission…see link in the very first part of this series) with the bolded text being the direct quote from Boettner’s list : “ 21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent....998 . Fasting on Fridays is mentioned as far back as the Didache (140 AD) [39], thus rendering Boettner more than 800 years off the mark. As for the Lenten fast, Athanasius, writing in his Festal Letters of 331 AD, stated that the faithful should fast for 40 days during Lent [40]. This makes Boettner 667 years off the mark. Canon 69 of the Apostolic Canons, which pre-date 341 AD, admonishes bishops, clergy, a...

As in Part 3, to keep the length within reason, I’ll let Mr. Ariss’ examinations speak for themselves and add my own comments in blue where I feel more clarification is needed. Everything in black ink, from here on, is quoted directly from Wayne Ariss (with his generous permission…see link in the very first part of this series) with the bolded text being the direct quote from Boettner’s list : “ 8. Extreme Unction....526 . Extreme Unction (or the Anointing of the Sick) is mentioned in the Epistle of James, 5:13-15, written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. In light of this fact, how Boettner came up with the idea that the Catholic Church "invented" it in 526 AD is a total mystery. [James 5:13-15 reads, “ Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick ...

*Item 45 appears in the 1965 edition, not in the original 1962 publication To keep this from being a 10-part series, I’m going to cover more per post and attempt to lump things into similar groups. This means longer posts…so I’ll let Mr. Ariss’ examinations speak for themselves and add my own comments in blue where I feel more clarification is needed. Everything in black ink, from here on, is quoted directly from Wayne Ariss (with his generous permission…see link in the very first part of this series) : "4. Veneration of angels and saints, and use of images....375. The veneration (or respect) paid to angels can be found in the First Apology of Justin Martyr (148 AD). In Chapter VI, he states that "the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him...we worship and adore" [7]. Likewise, Athenagoras of Athens wrote in Chapter X of the Supplication For the Christians (c.177 AD): "Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confi...

Some of the things on Boettner’s List deserve clarification because the misrepresented version of Catholic doctrine leads to erroneous “knowledge” of the Catholic Faith. They are outright falsehoods, whether intentionally presented or not, that need to be addressed. Others however, as we will look at today, don’t seem to be so important as far as identifying them as a Catholic “invention”. In reading some of the items he presents, I can’t help but wonder, “why would that be a bad thing, even if it were true?” Item #2, The Sign of the Cross : Boettner asserts it’s an “invention of Rome”. Well, even if it was, is marking ourselves with the symbol of Christ a bad thing? Let’s look at his claim here on the sign of the cross. He says it was invented near 300 AD . Wayne Ariss corrects this wrong date: “ Again we go back to Tertullian's The Crown of 211 AD: "In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign" [5]. This makes Boettner's date ...

As I study the Christian faith and its history, I have found it increasingly important to do 2 things (well, many, but in this particular case, 2 especially) : 1) find the facts and 2) correctly represent the position of all sides involved. Something I have noticed, however, is that sometimes things are presented as fact, when they really aren’t. Whether it be an honest mistake (made my share!), or just plain ignorance of an opposing view (guilty there as well!), or stubborn refusal to really find out the facts and report them honestly…or anything in between, facts tend to get, well, misrepresented. Few things are easier to misrepresent, I’ve found, than the position of the Catholic Church by non-Catholics [well-meaning as they may be] who wish to show the “errors” of “Romanism”. Wayne A. Ariss wrote a lengthy treatise titled “Romanism” Revisited: A Factual and Historical Refutation of the “Boettner List” . In this work, Mr. Ariss takes Loraine Boettner’s “list” found in...

Non-Catholics often point to 2Tim 3:16-17 as evidence for “sola Scriptura” (often times referred to as “SS” for short). And recently it was shown to me by someone as exactly such evidence for SS , stating that since Scripture says that Scripture makes us complete, that therefore “ Scripture is fully sufficient and contains everything necessary that God wants us to know in terms of doctrine and theology…if something makes us complete, then we don’t need anything else ”. He said that if we just look at the “ plain language of the text ”, we can see what Scripture is plainly telling us. So, I looked at 2Tim 3:16-17 to make sure what he said is the same thing that Scripture says. 2Tim3:16-17 says, “ All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. ” By my questions to these types of claims are, “ Where are you seeing Scripture ALONE ? It looks ...