Dave: Hi John, I have a few questions: 

1.  Although I don't know the passage reference, there is an episode in the NT where the apostles complain to Christ about another group (not part of Christ's entourage) who were preaching in his name and ask Him to stop them. However He refuses saying (in paraphrase): "leave them alone; if they're doing it in my name, they're on our side" (so to speak).

Two things about this please: this episode was quoted by a non-catholic friend of mine as proof that not just the Catholic religion leads to salvation (refuting as it were  extra ecclesiam nulla salus.)The friend implied that if 'eens' was true, then Christ would have stopped them. Why did Christ do this, do we know..?? it seems to contradict 1 fold and 1 shepherd and the unique deposit of faith in the Catholic Church etc don't you think? Surely no-one can preach any Christian (non-catholic) faith with Christ's blessing however well meaning they might be..?

J.Salza: 1. Dave, first, the argument presupposes that the men outside the apostolic fold were teaching error. Evidently, they were not, or the Savior would have said so. In fact, at this point, how much could these men have said? There wasn't a Deposit of Faith at this point in history, and so, at most, the men were preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Messiah. Second, Christ had not established His Church yet, so Protestants cannot say that these "outsiders" were independent of Christ's Church. In fact, they really weren't "outsiders." Christ did not establish the hierarchy of a pope, bishops, priests and deacons at this point. It would be a much different story on the other side of the Cross.

Dave: 2. "greater love than this no man has than to lay down his life for his friend" What exactly does this statement of Christ mean with regard to salvation and the forgiveness of individual sin (for the one who sacrificed his life)? Does it mean that anyone who dies to save another will be forgiven and saved no matter what? Or are there other conditions? I use this example with my son (with whom you have also corresponded): two communist friends are in a battle. One gets wounded as they retreat and the other goes back to help him but is shot and killed immediately so he had no time to confess etc. Would that mean that the 2nd man would be saved? As an atheistic enemy of Christ working actively against him, I can't see it. It may be that his 'love' for his friend, however misguided, would mitigate his punishment somewhat in the next world perhaps.........? How far does such a sacrifice go to gain individual salvation? I appreciate we can't anticipate Christ's mercy and/or justice but I can't see that in this example he would merit salvation.

J. Salza: 2. This question gets into the Church’s theology of martyrdom. No, it does not necessarily mean that martyrdom forgives sins. St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians that if we give over our body to be burned, but have not charity, we are nothing. It is only when we die with charity, not pride, that our death for Christ can be efficacious. In that case, it is the greatest act of charity, because it is the giving of

ourselves for the love of God. So Scripture and the Church are clear that we need to be in a state of grace, with the supernatural virtue of charity, to be saved. Regarding this particular passage, Jesus is emphasizing that He will demonstrate in the most perfect way possible God's love for humanity through His death. This is the greatest way in which God could have shown His love for us.

Dave: 3. I recently read a book called "Ancient siege warfare" by Paul Bentley Kern. In the section on biblical sieges he gives an account of the Israeli Exodus under Moses & Joshua. Well I have to say that it is basically an account of one massacre after another of whole populations including women and children and all done seemingly under God's instructions as they passed thru (some might say invaded...) the land of the Caananites etc.  The author quotes from the book of Deuteronomy (deut 20; 16-18) and also Joshua 5 & Joshua 8: 24-29 and comments: "this genocidal command is deeply disturbing to modern sensibilities".

I appreciate we are all God's creatures and he can do with us as He likes. I just wonder why He wanted the complete annihilation of these people...... The innocent as well as the guilty.......? It seems to also contradict Christ's message of peace and turning the other cheek. Although we know it's the same God of course, it almost seems like 2 different gods so opposite does their demeanor in the OT and the NT seem.

J.Salza: 3. Yes, the Old Testament certainly reveals God's exacting justice upon sinners. Remember, it is no different in the New Testament. Our Lady's warnings at Fatima and Akita also reveal that God will punish the world, both the faithful and the faithless, for the crimes and abominations that have been committed against Him. These punishments will exceed anything every experienced in the Old Testament. In fact, Our Lady at Akita said that the punishment will be worse than the deluge during the time of Noah which destroyed the world but for eight people. This will be a punishment of fire that will consume most of the world, sparing neither priest nor faithful. I believe the only thing that is staving off His wrath is the sacrifice of the Mass. But as Jesus said, we need not worry about it if we are in a state of grace. If we die in a state of grace, we go to heaven. Remember, the Israelites were worshiping false gods and even sacrificing their children on pagan altars to pagan deities. Their complete destruction shows the depths of the evil of sin and the incomprehensible holiness of our God

21.  Why do we worship on Sunday?

Chris: John, the Catholic Church has defied God’s commandment to keep holy the Sabbath by worshiping on Sunday. This was an evil invention of Constantine in the fourth century to copy the worship of the pagans. The Bible teaches us that we must worship God on Saturday, not Sunday. You are promoting lies.

J.Salza: Chris, first, the requirement to worship on Saturday was a law of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has abolished the Old Covenant including all of its moral, ceremonial and judicial laws. See 2Cor 3:14; Heb 7:12,18; 8:7,13; 9:15; 10:9. So the worship laws of the Old Covenant no longer apply (unless you claim they do because you are a Jew and not a Christian).

Second, Scripture teaches that God revealed to the apostles to change the principal day of worshiping God from Saturday to Sunday (hence, it is not a Catholic invention in the fourth century; it is a commandment of God revealed in Scripture and given by God to the Church). For example, in reference to the "day of rest," St. Paul writes to the Hebrews that "if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day" (Heb 4:8). That is, St. Paul reveals that Jesus spoke to His apostles of another day of rest, which is Sunday. Paul confirms in the next verse that "There remaineth therefore a day of rest for the people of God" (v.9). The "people of God" are the Church, the Christians of the New Covenant, not the Jews of the Old Covenant. This "day of rest" is the "another day" of verse 8, which reveals that the Old Testament day of worship was changed; it is no longer Saturday.

The Scriptures reveal that this "day of rest" is the first day of the week for Christians, or Sunday. For example, see Acts 20:7 which reveals that the apostles gathered on Sunday as the principal day of worship. In 1Cor 16:2, Paul instructions the Church to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week" which is Sunday. That is because the people would gather for Mass on Sunday and the church would take a collection, just as it happens today. There is also a reason why the gospel writers emphasize Jesus' resurrection and appearances occurred on Sunday Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19. In Rev 1:10, the apostle John also notes that he witnesses the heavenly liturgy on Sunday, the first day of the week. In Col 2:16-17, St. Paul reveals that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath." Why? Because the Sabbath day obligation, which was only a shadow of what was to be fulfilled in Christ, has been transformed into the Lord's Day, which is Sunday. Thus, we are not to judge people by the Old Sabbath anymore, because God has made it obsolete.

If these Scriptures are not enough, you should also read the following writings from the early Christians, who also reveal that the Church's principal day of worship was changed from the "Sabbath" to the "Lord's Day," which is Sunday.

On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master." Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

"The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest--abstraction from ills--preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord's Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth--a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).

"In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends of God." For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised--yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath--God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God." Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).

"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven." Teaching of the Apostles, 2 (A.D. 225).

"Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection." Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).

"On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that 'His soul hateth;' which Sabbath He in His body abolished." Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).

"They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we." Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).

"Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord's day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost." Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).

"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans, or into Judaism: for Jesus Christ henceforth hath ransomed thee. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths, and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:37 (A.D. 350).

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ." Council of Laodicea, Canon 29 (A.D. 360).

"For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked." Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians, 8 (A.D. 382).

"Then as one whom they must respect, there will be the presbyter among them and this will contribute to the security of the estate. There will be constant prayers there through thee hymns and Communions through thee; the Oblation on each Lord's Day." John Chrysostom, Acts of the Apostles, Homily 18 (A.D. 388).

"And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?" Apostolic Constitutions, 2,7:59 (A.D. 400).

"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian,--whether it prohibit the making and worshipping of idols and of any other gods than the one true God, or the taking of God's name in vain; or prescribe honour to parents; or give warning against fornication, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, or coveting other men's property? Which of these commandments would any one say that the Christian ought not to keep? Is it possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle describes as 'the letter that killeth,' but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished? But then how can we think so, when in the law occurs this precept, 'Thou shall not covet,' by which very commandment, notwithstanding its being holy, just, and good, 'sin,' says the apostle, 'deceived me, and by it slew me?' What else can this be than 'the letter' that 'killeth'?" Augustine, Spirit and the Letter, 23:14 (A.D. 412).

"He [Constantine] also enjoined the observance of the day termed the Lord's day, which the Jews call the first day of the week, and which the pagans dedicate to the sun, as likewise the day before the seventh, and commanded that no judicial or other business should be transacted on those days, but that God should be served with prayers and supplications. He honored the Lord's day, because on it Christ arose from the dead, and the day above mentioned, because on it he was crucified." Sozomon, Ecclesiastical History, 1:8 (A.D. 443).

"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord's day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord's day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the per-tidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, 'Ye shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day', could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For, if any one says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered: he must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the Apostle Paul saying in opposition to him, 'If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing.’” Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To the Roman Citizens, Epistle 13:1 (A.D. 597).

16. Pope Benedict XVI’s Homily on the Jews’ Irrevocable Covenant

Chris: John, I have read your posts about the Pope's unique authority. That being so, how do you explain the follow homily which the pontiff preached last month? I'm especially struck by his statement toward the end: "For the Apostle, the Mosaic Law, as an irrevocable gift of God to Israel, is not abrogated but relativized, since it is only by faith in God's promises to Abraham, now fulfilled in Christ, that we receive the grace of justification and new life." It doesn't sound much like Trent. 

http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english

http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english> 

Sincere thanks,

Chris

J. Salza: Chris, I have not read the entire homily and so I will comment only on what you provided below. First, remember that the pope's homilies are not protected by the charism of infallibility, unless he is restating infallible teaching. Also note that the popes homilies are often written by liberal theologians, many of them Judaizers, and don't come from the pope himself. The pope is surrounded by wolves in sheep's clothing, and we need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now, referring to the Mosaic Law as the "irrevocable gift" is not accurate. The Mosaic law is not "irrevocable," for it has been abolished by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. See Rom 7:4; 2Cor 3:14; Gal 3:10-13; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14; Heb 7:12,18; 8:13; 10:9. To say that the Mosaic law has not been abrogated but has been "relativized" is to contradict the very Scriptures that explicitly say it has been abrogated (especially the terminology Paul uses in Hebrews) and dogmatic councils. Also, the word "relativized" has no theological meaning.

Further, this statement is an eisegesis of Romans 11:29 where Paul says that God's "gifts and call [to the Jews] are without repentance." The word "irrevocable" which has crept into many translations of Romans 11:29 is not accurate. The Greek is ametameletos which means "unregretted." It doesn't mean "irrevocable. The Douay Rheims accurately translates the word as "without repentance."

Also, Paul in Romans 11:29 is not referring to the covenant of law God established with Moses, but the covenant of grace that God established with Abraham. Paul is simply saying that, inspite of the Jews' hardheartedness, God does not regret calling them into the covenant of Jesus Christ, by grace (although Paul says that God is going to save only a remnant of them).

The second half of this piece is also problematic from my perspective because it says "only by faith" do we receive the grace of justification. I haven't read the Italian translation, which would be "solamente da fede" or "in fede da sola", but we must rather say "it is by faith in God's promises to Abraham, now fulfilled in Christ, that we receive justification and new

life." It is important to remove the word "only," which the ecumaniacs have been pressing for years (in fact, Cardinal Ratizinger was pressured to sign the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification in 1999 which contained a similar erroneous statement, and he refused to sign the document  - the error was later excised out of it).

It is true that by faith in God's promises to Abraham, both Jews and Gentiles are led to the grace of the New Covenant. But it is never by faith alone or "only by faith" that man is justified, but by faith, hope and charity, infused in the soul through God's grace, that is the formal cause of justification. This is the infallible and irreformable teaching of the

Council of Trent.

It looks like the pope continues to be pressured into compromising statements. We need to continue to pray for him, for he is our papa and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. There is more that I could say, but I gotta go. I hope that helps.

Chris: Thanks John, you're always consistent, I'll give you that. 

Let me know what you think of the article after you read it.  You're opening statement about the Pope not being held responsible to preach orthodoxy because his sermons don't possess the infallible charism is most interesting. Is this a common view? Looking at it from a pastoral point of view, this strikes me as potentially dangerous. 

Blessings John!

In Advent Joy,

Chris

J.Salza: Chris, you are welcome. Also, I did not say that the pope should not be "held responsible to preach orthodoxy because his sermons don't possess the infallible charism." The pope is responsible for everything he says and does before God, his only judge.

I said that his sermons are not protected by the charism of infallibility unless he is restating infallible teaching. If, for example, the pope in a Wednesday audience restated a dogmatic canon from the council of Trent, the teaching would be considered infallible, not by virtue of the statement itself (because it presumably would not meet the criteria set forth by Vatican I), but because it simply restates what has already been declared infallibly. Same when the pope reiterates infallible teaching from the ordinary and universal Magisterium, like the Church's teachings on contraception or prohibition of women priests. The teaching - the essence if you will - is without error, although the formulation (the statement) would not be

considered infallible in se (unlike a dogmatic canon, which is considered infallible in se). I hope that clarifies things.

I haven't read the book you mentioned. I do not like mixing Protestant-sounding terminology to convey Catholic ideas, so I am suspect of the category of "Evangelical Catholic." The term "Evangelical" is a particular brand of Protestantism (vis-a-vis Reformed Protestantism) and so the term, the way it is used in today's Christian circles, should not be used to communicate Catholic teachings or ideas. God bless you.