Bateman on Trial

FILE: Trial / DATE: Sept-Oct 1995 / CONFERENCE: FidoNet OpenBible

CONTENTS: A reply to Korean anti-Catholic Kim Yong (Jae) and humorous refutation of articles from Fundy Charles Bateman (they are quoted in red) titled "Catholicism Evolved" on the supposed origins of the Roman Catholic Church. An explanation of the development of doctrine, definition of one of the marks of the true Church (the word "Catholic") and defense of the ministerial priesthood from the source Bateman/Yong misused, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) which is now available online from the NEW ADVENT Supersite.


Date: 09-20-95 / From: P / To: KIM YONG / Subj: Bateman on Trial



An Examination of Darwin's Theory of Catholicism

"Catholics, with their religion, EVOLVED."

(c) Copyright 1995 by P



the claim to be examined -- in the words of Charles Darwin Bateman

"Christians have existed since Christ called men to follow Him. Catholics EVOLVED!"

"More official Catholic authorities speak of the evolution of Catholicism...."

"Catholicism evolved and Catholic authorities have published that fact."

"....Catholicism is a mass of evolutionary events which have produced a machine quite different in government from the primitive Church. Even that institution's own authorities stress the reality that the now extant condition produced by centuries of evolutionary change renders its claim to be the Church of Christ fraudulent...."

(from "Catholicism Evolved" in two parts by Charles Bateman Open_Bible 4/30/95 and 5/5/95 -- re-posted by Kim Yong 9/95 under the subject title "Upon Shifting Sand")


"These present very good facts, which are, more often than not, ignored, and even avoided. These Catholic authors prove that their religious institution is not the church of Christ." (Kim Yong on Charles Bateman's posts -- Open_Bible 9/8/95)



When asked from what SECONDARY source Bateman/Yong were getting their material and quotes, Kim Yong responded to me on 9/14/95 --

KY> The quotes I submit are from Catholic authorities, publications housed in a personal library to which I have access. The "SECONDARY" source is personal discovery. The majority of the primary sources from which I quote are available through public and university libraries, and possibly all may be acquired from those contacts.

The "primary sources" which were quoted could very well be acquired from my public library through inter-library loan. However, it would take me about 3-4 weeks to get the books and I would need authors and dates which were not provided for all the sources used in the Bateman/Yong posts. There was one reference given for the "Catholic Dictionary" by Addis & Arnold and dated 1884.

KY> [Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, The Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1884, P. 692]

This might be hard to locate even through inter-library loan due to the date. Has it been re-printed recently (within last 30 years) ? I would need the rest -- "Catholic Facts" ? "Catholic Encyclopedia" ?

According to Kim Yong, the "SECONDARY" source is "personal discovery." I tend to doubt this. I have found EVERY ONE of the quotes used in the Bateman/Yong posts in a rabidly ANTI-Catholic book titled CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF by O.C. Lambert (originally published in 1963 and re-printed in 1976 -- there is also an expanded version in 2 volumes). The quotes in the Lambert book and in the Bateman/Yong posts are identical -- including the quote, reference and page number.

This is a SECONDARY source and, as far as I am concerned, it is WORTHLESS for discovering the true teachings of Catholicism and the reasons why Catholics believe what they believe. The author was deliberately trying to create "contradictions" much like one Gail Riplinger has done in her book defending KJV Onlyism.

The quotes found in the Lambert book (and in the Bateman/Yong posts) are passage bites from supposedly "official Catholic sources" dated early this century or even last century. I doubt that Bateman or Yong HAVE the original sources (since their quotations are taken right out of Lambert's anti-Catholic book) and therefore they have no knowledge of the context of the statements quoted, nor do they really understand what is being said in the passage bites.

In addition, much that WAS quoted is completely irrelevant to Catholic claims. I will explain and document all of this shortly.

KY> You are welcomed to offer any answers you wish, realizing two limitations: You are not authorized to officially speak for the hierarchy who have published the things I quote, and your opinions are just that, your opinions.

I am not a Catholic priest, if that is what you mean. My opinions are only good so long as they line up with the official teaching of the Catholic Church. And I am commanded by our current Pope and the Bible to evangelize and defend and explain my Catholic faith to others, and especially to people like you who misunderstand what and why we believe.

Quoting Pope John Paul II in the introduction to the universal CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (CCC) --

"Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.

"It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Peter 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes."

JOHN PAUL II, October 11, 1992, On the Publication of the CCC

KY> If I quote authorized Catholic publications which expose the internal contradictions of Roman Catholic statements, and you quote contradictions to what I quote, you substantiate and sustain my exposure of internal contradictions within Roman Catholicism.

Nice try, Kim. The problem is what you quoted came from an anti-Catholic SECONDARY source titled CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF by O.C. Lambert. I have the abridged edition of Lambert's work and will demonstrate this. I have no idea (and you have no idea) whether what he quoted is accurate. In addition, some of the passage bites that were quoted are irrelevant to Catholic claims.

I respond to much of what you quoted in your posts -- SO WHAT?

If you actually HAVE the primary Catholic sources you quoted in your posts please prove it to me by expanding upon some of the passage bites. For example, please give me the paragraph that contains the following three-word quotation --

KY> "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED" (Cath. Ency., XII, 406, 415). [emphasis mine]

This exact quote is found in Lambert's abridged work at page 61 --

"The priesthood evolved" (Cath. Ency., XII, 406, 415).

The quote, abbreviations, volume number and page numbers are identical. Hence, I conclude you stole this right from Lambert's book. Correct?

We will get to what "evolved" can mean and how Catholics understand the development of doctrine next. Development is not corruption. But first, Kim, if you actually HAVE the original source from which this three-word quote is taken, please prove it to me and document it by quoting the entire paragraph from pages 406 and 415 of volume XII of the "Cath. Ency." Then we can see what is the context.

Also give me the full title of the "Cath. Ency.", the article title in the Encyclopedia, the author, and publication date. Then I can believe you actually have the primary source. As far as official Catholic sources, I will mainly stick with the most authoritative source -- THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I will now move on to the substance of the recent posts of Kim Yong.


"There is no root linking the Roman Catholic machine to Christ. The documents used to show a link are forgeries."

Charles Darwin Bateman, "Catholicism Evolved"


"Here we are well supplied. The testimony is ample, and it is consistent. Whatever variations may be discerned, in accordance with the idiosyncrasies of particular authors, the main outlines of the conception are the same. Alike at Rome and at Alexandria, in Africa and in the East, men believed in a great spiritual community, founded by Christ, through His Spirit working in His Apostles, to which all the promises of the Old Testament were attached.

"This community was necessarily unique. In it, and in it alone, the gifts and graces of the Spirit of Christ were to be looked for. In spite of human imperfections, it was guided and permeated in every part by the Spirit. Nor was this community an intangible thing. It was a reality of experience, embodied in a practical discipline.

"The society was well known and unmistakable. Its doctrine was everywhere the same; its worship, with rich diversity of forms, centred round one Eucharistic memorial. It had an organised hierarchy for worship and for the pastorate of souls. This hierarchy maintained union between the local branches, and did so in the name and by the authority of Christ.

"However far back the history is traced, no date can be assigned, however roughly, for the appearance of Catholicism in the Church. The Church was Catholic from the outset."

Anglican Canon A.J. Mason "Early Conceptions of the Church" in ESSAYS ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AND THE MINISTRY by H.B. Swete (1921) cited in THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY by B.C. Butler (NY: Sheed and Ward, 1954)


Three sections of Bateman on Trial are included here, originally it was a more "ambitious project" answering all the anti-Catholic charges from the Bateman/Yong posts, but the main three subjects discussed here are:

(1) On the Development of Doctrine

(2) Catholic AND Christian

(3) Priest and Priesthood



The main contention and "proof" that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded according to Bateman/Yong is the following --

KY> Catholic authorities have declared: "If it be not identical in belief, IN GOVERNMENT, etc, with the primitive Church, THEN IT IS NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST" (Catholic Facts, 27) [emphasis mine]

On the first page of CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF by O.C. Lambert we find the exact same quote --

"...if it be not identical in belief, in government, etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ" (Catholic Facts, 27).

Reading further in Lambert's work one discovers the author of the "Catholic Facts" book is one Bishop Noll (Lambert, p. 64). No first name is given and when I tried to look up this book and any book by a "Bishop Noll" I could not find any in the State of Florida University library system. Darn.....

This quote is repeated often in Lambert's abridged work of 136 pages. As I have already shown, it is clear Bateman/Yong is simply quoting from this anti-Catholic book by Lambert. More examples to follow.

Now, all Lambert/Bateman/Yong believe they have to do is show a CHANGE of any kind in current Catholic teaching or practice from what they believe to be the "New Testament teaching" and then they conclude Catholics have admitted they are not the original "Church of Christ."

Does this follow logically? No. The real question is --

What does Bishop Noll consider "the primitive Church?" Lambert/Bateman/Yong assume he means the New Testament and restricts the "primitive" church to the first century. However, if Bishop Noll includes the first 300 years of the Christian church -- or the first 500 years of the Church -- as most reasonable people would consider the "primitive Church" then it is clear the Catholic Church of today is identical in belief, in government, etc. with that early Church. Get a set of the Fathers such as THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS by William Jurgens (3 volumes) and you will see this is the case.

If we restrict the "primitive Church" to the explicit statements of the New Testament it is not so clear. Why? Because of the development of doctrine, in practice and Liturgy that did take place compared with the not so clear statements of Scripture in those areas (2 Pet 3:16). The Catholic belief is that the Bible alone is not to be taken as the sole rule of faith because it was never meant to be so taken (2 Thess 2:15). Scripture, Tradition, and the Church Magisterium taken together form the Rule of Faith for Christians (Vatican II, Dei Verbum).

The Darwinian statement -- "Catholics, with their religion, EVOLVED" is true if one takes "EVOLVED" in the sense of a proper and true development of apostolic doctrine. If one takes "EVOLVED" in the sense of "INVENTION" or "CORRUPTION" then Catholicism did not evolve.

You only need to check the Fossil Record of the Church Fathers, or as one Michael Lancto (a former Catholic of Fido) remarked -- the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church Fathers, to see that Catholic doctrines were not invented out of thin air. And because there were no protests of these distinctive Catholic doctrines in the early Church, there is no evidence of "corruption" either. The early Christians were ultra-conservative and simply would not allow such a mass-scale "corruption" as is alleged by anti-Catholics.

Therefore, I will refute Bateman's long "evolutionary thesis" with the evidence that Catholicism made an "abrupt appearance" immediately in Church history. In summary, Catholics and their Church were created by Christ (Mt 16:18-19) but are evolving by the Holy Spirit of truth (Jn 14:16; 16:13) sent to abide with the Church forever (Mt 28:20).

"But perhaps someone is saying: 'Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?' Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another.

"It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion."

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitoria 23:28 A.D 434


"My argument then is this: that, from the first age of Christianity, its teaching looked towards those ecclesiastical dogmas, afterwards recognized and defined, with (as time went on) more or less determinate advance in the direction of them; till at length that advance became so pronounced, as to justify their definition and to bring it about, and to place them in the position of rightful interpretations and keys of the remains and the records in history of the teaching which had so terminated."



88. The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith.

89. There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith (cf. Jn 8:31-32).

90. The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ (Vatican I, -nexus mysteriorum-; LG 25). "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith" (UR 11).


As an example, the New Testament nowhere states explicitly that there is "One God in three Persons." The Trinity is an example of a true development of doctrine and the dogma and definitions were hammered out by the early Fathers and Councils of the Church. For an excellent Evangelical study on this subject, check out GOD IN THREE PERSONS by E. Calvin Beisner (Tyndale House, 1984).

Another example of development is the canon of the New Testament itself. Nowhere in the New Testament is there an "inspired" table of contents. Certain books were questioned and/or excluded from early canon lists such as Revelation, James, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter. Other books were considered authoritative and/or inspired such as the Epistle of Barnabas and Clement, the Didache, or the Shepherd of Hermas. It was the Bishops of the Catholic Church that finally decided upon the limits of the New Testament canon (based on tradition) and all Christians receive that canon today from that early or "primitive" Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit. For a standard Protestant treatment of this subject, check out THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE by F.F. Bruce (Intervarsity Press, 1988).

The same type of development occurred with regard to the Eucharist and the Sacraments, the Papacy, and the Catholic Marian beliefs. For a standard Protestant work on the early Church, check out EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by J.N.D. Kelly (orig 1958, paperback 1985).

There are even examples of the development of doctrine in the New Testament. See Acts 10:9-16. Peter receives a vision in which God revokes the Jewish kosher food laws. Peter ponders the meaning of this revelation and, as a type and figure of the Church's Magisterium, draws forth the vision's implication that no PERSON is unclean (v. 17-28). The vision dealt with animals so Peter here engages in doctrinal development.

Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem is another example. Both oral and written tradition are relied upon and discussed. And the apostles and presbyters (the Magisterium) decide that Gentile Christians should not be circumcised. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (v. 28). This is doctrinal development or "evolution" if you prefer.

See also the article in the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1967) for a scholarly treatment of the development of doctrine (vol 4, pg 940ff). Next we will consider your examples of Catholic "evolution" in action.



The first section of the Bateman/Yong posts is a quibble over the word "Catholic." Some anti-Catholics are so hateful of the Catholic Church they simply cannot stand the word "Catholic." Ignoring the historic definition of Catholic and the Christian use of the word from the earliest centuries, Bateman titles his "Catholicism Evolved" articles

KY> CATHOLIC or CHRISTIAN by Charles M. Bateman (c) Copyright 1994

"Christian" is good. Anything "Catholic" is bad according to him.

KY> Christians were called "Christians" first at Antioch [Acts of The Apostles 11:26], there were no Catholics mentioned because there were no Catholics there. The disciples were called CHRISTIANS, not Catholics. Christians have existed since Christ called men to follow Him. Catholics EVOLVED!

I have already dealt with the "evolution" idea in the last article on the development of doctrine. Now, it is quite true that the earliest followers of Christ were called "Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is what "Christian" (Greek christianos) means -- "followers of Christ" (see also Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16). However, according to Protestant Greek scholar W.E. Vine --

"Though the word rendered 'were called' in Acts 11:26 (see under call) might be used of a name adopted by oneself or given by others, the 'Christians' do not seem to have adopted it for themselves in the times of the apostles.

"In 1 Peter 4:16, the apostle is speaking from the point of view of the persecutor; cf. 'as a thief,' 'as a murderer.' Nor is it likely that the appellation was given by Jews. As applied by Gentiles there was no doubt an implication of scorn, as in Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:28. Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century, says,

'The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius, been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate' (Annals xv. 44).

"From the SECOND century onward the term was accepted by believers as a title of honor." (p. 101)


This looks like another example of development or "evolution" if you prefer. The word "Christian" was first applied as a title of derision and does not seem to be adopted by the earliest disciples of Christ but was used as scorn by their enemies. Later in the second century, the word "Christian" was accepted by the believers themselves.

In other words, using Bateman's logic, "Christians" EVOLVED!

Likewise, simply because they were not CALLED "Catholics" in the first century does not mean they were NOT Catholics. We need to understand what the word "catholic" means as the Christian Church has historically defined and applied the term.

From the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (para 830-832) --

III. The Church is Catholic

What does "catholic" mean?

830. The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." The Church is catholic in a double sense:

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church" [St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn 8:2 A.D. 110]. In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation" [Vatican II UR 3; AG 6; Eph 1:22-23] which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost [cf. AG 4] and will always be so until the day of the Parousia [Second Coming of Christ].

831. Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race [Mt 28:19] :

"All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled:

"he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one...The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, UNDER CHRIST THE HEAD IN THE UNITY OF HIS SPIRIT [LG 13 1-2; cf. Jn 11:52]."

Each particular Church is "catholic"

832. "The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament....In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated....In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted" [Vatican II LG 26].

KY> So is the testimony of Roman Catholic authorities who have dared to be bold enough to tell the truth of the matter.

An excellent article on the meaning of "catholic" is found in the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1967) in volume 3. Here it is --


The word catholic means general or universal (from the Greek katholikos). Originally applied to the universal care and providence of God (by Tertullian), to the general resurrection (by Theophilus of Antioch), it is still used of those [New Testament] Epistles addressed to the Church at large and not to particular communities.

But today the term is more often applied to the Church founded by Christ, which is of its nature intended for all races and all times. The Prophets of the Old Law announced the universal reign of the Messiah, and this was established by Christ, who spoke of the kingdom as being destined for all men and who sent out His disciples to teach all nations. The reception of Cornelius marked an important step in the realization of this ideal; St. Paul in his day could already speak of the faith as being known throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8).

Early Church documents (Didache, St. Polycarp) speak of universality as one of the characteristics of Christianity, and St. Ignatius of Antioch (Smyrn 8:2 A.D. 110) was the first to use the expression "the Catholic Church." The growth of the Church in the first two centuries is often taken as a sign of its divine origin, since up to the time of Constantine there were very few material advantages to be obtained by a profession of Christanity; yet persecution increased rather than diminished the spread of the Church.

The struggle with the Donatists helped to clarify catholicicty as a mark of the Church. The claim of the Donatists to be the one true church of Christ was seen to be inadmissible, since they were but a sect in a small corner of the globe. Optatus of Mileve and St. Augustine particularly insisted on this aspect of the Church of Christ spread throughout the world. Throughout history, as new lands and peoples have been discovered, the one and same Church has been extended to all parts of the world.

The word Catholic is also applied to the teaching and the faith of the Church of Christ, and in this sense it means what is believed by the whole Church. Thus Catholic teaching becomes a test of orthodoxy. It is sound doctrine as opposed to heresy, or, as Vincent of Lerins said, "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. This is what is truly and properly Catholic" (Common 1:2). What is believed by the universal Church must be true, otherwise there would be a total defection from the teaching of Christ.

Finally, the word Catholic is used of individual Christians insofar as they belong to the Catholic Church and are orthodox in their belief.

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1967), volume 3, page 261

KY> So is the testimony of Roman Catholic authorities who have dared to be bold enough to tell the truth of the matter.


KY> Catholic literature describes the evolution, which also explains why there is not the first "Catholic" mentioned in the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith - not in the Gospels, nor in the Epistles, nor in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is the first Catholic even hinted at...

I'm not quite sure what Bateman/Yong is driving at here. Considering the explanations I have given above, the first disciples of Christ were Catholic AND Christian, that is, they were followers of Christ and together held one universal Faith proclaimed throughout the whole world (Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Jn 17:21; Acts 1:8; Rom 1:8; Eph 4:4-6).

However, as we all know, the Christian Church did not cease to exist in 100 A.D. Nor is there any microscopic speck of evidence that the Church fell into apostasy. Christ said He would build His Church on Peter as the Rock and the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt 16:18-19). That Church would be guided by the "Spirit of truth" to the end of time (Jn 14:16; 16:13; Mt 28:20) and would always remain "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). The following are the testimonies of two more Catholic authorities (Cyril of Jerusalem in the East, and Augustine in the West) on the meaning of "Catholic" :

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 315 - 386 A.D.)

"[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth; and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body; and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description." (Catechetical Lectures 18:23)

"And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is -- for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord -- nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to his holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God." (Catechetical Lectures 18:26)

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPO (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"In the Catholic Church, not to speak of that purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, in such a way that, in its least part only, for they are but men, they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds its greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing -- not to speak, I say of that wisdom which you do not believe is present in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which, most properly, can keep me in her bosom.

"The UNANIMITY of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her AUTHORITY, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The SUCCESSION of priests, from the very See of the Apostle PETER, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep [Jn 21:15ff], up to the PRESENT episcopate, keeps me here.

"And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church ALONE, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be CALLED Catholic, when a stranger inquired where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house." (Against Letter of Mani 4:5, A.D. 397)

"For it was not to heretics but to CATHOLICS that the Apostle was speaking when he said: 'Let us, therefore, as many of us as are perfect, be of this mind; and if in anything you be minded otherwise, that too God will reveal to you' [Phil 3:15]. This was thought to have been done in the case of Caelestius, when he responded that he agreed with the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt in this matter was taken away." (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2:3:5, A.D. 420)

KY> So is the testimony of Roman Catholic authorities who have dared to be bold enough to tell the truth of the matter.


And here's more Catholics and Protestants on the use and meaning of "Catholic" in the primitive Church :

"I did have one reason for wanting to live a little longer: to see you become a Catholic Christian before I died." (Augustine's mother Monica on her prayer for her son cited in Alan Schreck CATHOLIC AND CHRISTIAN)

"As regards 'Catholic', its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general'....As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from the heretical congregations....What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church." (J.N.D. Kelly in EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES)

"However far back the history is traced, no date can be assigned, however roughly, for the appearance of Catholicism in the Church. The Church was Catholic from the outset." (Anglican Canon A.J. Mason "Early Conceptions of the Church" cited in THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY by B.C. Butler)

"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this....TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY IS TO CEASE TO BE A PROTESTANT." (John Henry Cardinal Newman from AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, originally published 1845 shortly before Newman became a Catholic)

So is the testimony of Protestant authorities who have dared to be bold enough to tell the truth of the matter.


Case No 95-10-15-666


The Pope's Monkey Trial

"Catholics, with their religion, EVOLVED."



JUDGE -- JAMES R. WHITE, presiding

The CHARGES brought against the DEFENDANT, Charles Bateman --

(1) 55 counts of Catholic Bashing in the First Degree

(2) 95 counts of misuse, abuse, exegetical and contextual murder of an innocent, defenseless Encyclopedia -- specifically, THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA of 15 volumes (c) 1913

(3) 173 counts of illogical and irrelevant arguments against the Catholic Church

(4) 500 counts of plagiarizing copyrighted anti-Catholic material without giving the author any credit and claiming it as one's own

(5) and 1 count of using the word "Popery"



I have mentioned previously that I have FOUND the Catholic Encyclopedia (in the library at the University of South Florida, Tampa) that Charles Bateman/Kim Yong-Jae have misused. That's right -- misused, abused, and at one point even inventing a quotation that does not exist. I will give the full context and explanation of the quotes shortly.

As I said, Bateman and Yong-Jae have no idea what they are quoting and are getting their quotes from a secondary source. More on that later. There were in fact 3 main Catholic sources quoted in the posts by Charles Bateman under the subject title "Catholicism Evolved" and re-posted by Kim Yong-Jae last month titled "Upon Shifting Sand."

I had asked Kim to give me the full references. Here is what he gave me on 9/22/95 --

KY> [Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, The Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1884, P. 692]

P> This might be hard to locate even through inter-library loan due to the date. Has it been re-printed recently (within last 30 years) ?

KY> Is that an excuse to keep from looking? As for it being "reprinted recently," no, not to my knowledge. I own a copy, for which I paid $50.00. Rare book search-services are also available for those who are determined to seek and find.

In fact this volume HAS been re-printed several times and is available at the University of Florida (Gainesville). Here is the bibliographic reference ---

AUTHOR: William Edward Addis (1844-1917) and Thomas Arnold (1823-1900)

TITLE: A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY containing some account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church

CALL NUMBER: BX841.A3 1951 at University of Florida

revised by T.B. Scannell further revised with additions by P.E. Hallett

15th edition -- 843 pages -- published in London: Routledge and K. Paul (1951)

16th edition -- 860 pages -- further revision by staff of St. John's Seminary -- published in St. Louis: Herder (1957)

17th edition -- 860 pages published in London: Routledge and K. Paul (1960)

I could order this through inter-library loan but will not waste the time. I have already seen how badly The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) was abused by Bateman and Yong-Jae which was their main source.

P> I would need the rest -- "Catholic Facts" ? "Catholic Encyclopedia" ?

KY> [Catholic Facts, John Francis Knoll, Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, IN, 1927]

From this source only one quote was taken --

KY> Catholic authorities have declared: "If it be not identical in belief, IN GOVERNMENT, etc, with the primitive Church, THEN IT IS NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST" (Catholic Facts, 27) [emphasis mine]

I have already dealt with this quote and the concept of development of doctrine in Bateman on Trial parts 1 through 11. To a Catholic, the "primitive Church" could mean anything from the first 300 years to the first 500 years of the Church. I will deal with Church government, priests, bishops and the hierarchy next. In fact, the Catholic Church IS identical with the "primitive Church."

KY> [Catholic Encyclopedia, Special Edition - published under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Society in 15 volumes, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., New York, 1913]

KY> There is a set of this encyclopedia at Auburn University At Montgomery, AL, and they may xerox sections for you to confirm quotations. You will have to contact them. (Library Reference Department, Auburn University At Montgomery, 7300 University Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117; phone: 1-334-244-3649)

No need for me to write to Montgomery, AL as I have FOUND all 15 volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia at the University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. I have copied all the pages that I need and have checked the context of the quotations used. On the front page of each of the fifteen volumes is the full title --


An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church

edited by Charles G. Herbermann, Ph.D., LL.D. Edward A. Pace, Ph.D., D.D. Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D. Thomas J. Shahan, D.D. John J. Wynne, S.J. assisted by numerous collaborators


Special Edition under the Auspices of The Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee

New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc. (c) 1913

NIHIL OBSTAT, June 1, 1911 -- Remy Lafort, S.T.D.

IMPRIMATUR -- John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

It is clear to me Bateman/Yong-Jae have NOT checked any of the quotations taken from these volumes since some are so far out of context it is ridiculous. In fact, one quotation was INVENTED out of thin air.

KY> "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED" (Cath. Ency., XII, 406, 415). [emphasis mine]

Volume XII in The Catholic Encyclopedia contains the articles on "Priest" and "Priesthood" starting at page 406 and running to page 417. This quotation DOES NOT EXIST. It is an INVENTION.

In fact, the word "EVOLVED" is never used once in the articles on "Priest" and "Priesthood."

The source of "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED" quote is the following --

CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF (c) 1963 and reprinted in 1976 by O.C. Lambert, page 61 in the abridged edition of 136 pages : "The priesthood evolved" (Cath. Ency., XII, 406, 415). In fact, I have found all but four of the quotations used in the Bateman/Yong-Jae posts in this rabid anti-Catholic book by O.C. Lambert. I assume the missing four are contained in the expanded version by Lambert in two volumes (each 294 pages).

In other words, Bateman/Yong-Jae have lifted these quotations from a secondary anti-Catholic source. It might be possible they are actually taking them from a third-hand source that is quoting Lambert's book -- or a fourth-hand or fifth-hand source, ad infinitum. The book by O.C. Lambert is not scholarship. It is neither accurate nor fair. It is NONSENSE on the level of Jack Chick comic books. Quotations are simply made up out of thin air or taken grossly out of context to prove a conclusion already believed beforehand. With chapter titles like these who in his right mind would think such a book is trying to be fair -- from the Table of Contents

II. Unreliability of Catholic Literature / V. Catholic History (Tradition) Series of Forgeries / VI. Foolishness in Lives of Saints / VII. Roman Catholic System Immoral / IX. Roman Catholicism Alias Paganism / X. Catholic Paganism Refutes Itself / XI. Which Will You Have, Catholic Confusion or Bible Certainty? / XII. Catholic Absurd Claim of Unity Refuted / XIII. Roman Catholicism Un-American -- Our Greatest Menace

Now let's get into some real scholarship -- THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA!


"These present very good facts, which are, more often than not, ignored, and even avoided. These Catholic authors prove that their religious institution is not the church of Christ." (Kim Yong-Jae on Charles Bateman's posts OpenBible 9/8/95)

"Accordingly, the Catholic priesthood has the INDISPUTABLE RIGHT to trace its origin in this respect also to the Divine Founder of the Church...A Christianity without a priesthood CANNOT be the Church of Christ."

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, volume 12, p. 414,415

KY> So is the testimony of Roman Catholic authorities who have dared to be bold enough to tell the truth of the matter.



Now I will finally answer Bateman/Yong-Jae's supposed quotes from Catholic sources -- first, the ones dealing with priest and priesthood.

KY> 1. There was not any priesthood [except the universal priesthood of all Christians - all believers]. The priesthood evolved....."The words 'priest,' 'priesthood,' are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are said to be priests." [Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, The Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1884, p. 692]

Since I don't have access to this Catholic Dictionary I am very curious what ELSE this source has to say on the priesthood. The above quote is found in the anti-Catholic book by Lambert, p. 60. I have already proven that Bateman/Yong-Jae/Lambert are willing to make up quotes out of thin air without checking their sources for accuracy. Anyway, what is actually being admitted by the above quote? Not much.

Simply the fact that the New Testament does not explicitly use the word "PRIEST" (Gr hiereus) for the office of Christian ministry (the Greek word PRESBUTEROS = Elder is used which is where we get the word PRIEST in English) does not mean that Jesus did not intend His Church to have a special sacramental or ministerial priesthood.

Paul does state that in his office as a minister or serving PRIEST (Gr leitourgos) of Christ he is in the "PRIESTLY SERVICE" (hierourgeo which is a hiereus cognate) of preaching the Gospel and the OFFERING (prosphero) up of the Gentiles (Rom 15:15-16 RSV). This is priestly-sacrificial language. More evidence for this later.

Secondly, Catholics ACCEPT the biblical teaching on the "universal priesthood" or what is called by historic Protestants as the "priesthood of all believers" but this does not exclude a ministerial priesthood.


Two Participations in the One Priesthood of Christ

1546. Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father" [Rev 1:6; 5:9-10; 1 Peter 2:5,9]. The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly.

The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be... a holy priesthood" [Vatican II LG 10,1].

1547. The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the ONE priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially [LG 10,2].

In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace -- a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit -- the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians.

The ministerial priesthood is a MEANS by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is trasmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1551. This priesthood is ministerial. "That office...which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a SERVICE" [LG 24]. It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church.

The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a "sacred power" which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all [Mk 10:43-15; 1 Peter 5:3]. "The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him" [St. John Chrysostom, De sac 2,4; cf. John 21:15-17].

The very verses that are quoted for the "universal priesthood" of all believers (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev 1:6) come from the Old Testament concept (see Exod 19:6) where "the children of Israel" were also a "kingdom of priests" even though there existed alongside these a special ministerial priesthood (see v. 22 and later the Levitical priesthood).

KY> "At the end of the second, or beginning of the third century, the term 'priest' was in common use" (Cath. Dic., 693)

So what? Does the Catholic Dictionary state the term "priest" and the ministerial priesthood was INVENTED in the beginning of the third century? Hardly. This quote is found in Lambert's anti-Catholic book, p. 60-61. Again, I would like to have the source to see what Bateman/Yong-Jae/Lambert are leaving out.

The term "PRIEST" was in common use at the end of the second century. Great! That is 1,300 years before Luther and the Reformation came along and said, "Oh no, the Church got it wrong for 1,300 years -- there is no ministerial priesthood." The Greek term PRESBUTEROS is alive and well in the New Testament (see James 5:14-15) and the English word "PRIEST" etymologically is derived from the Latin PRESBYTER which in the Greek NT is PRESBUTEROS. No big deal.

KY> "It will suffice to mention the now UNIVERSALLY REJECTED OPINION of Gerson and a few other doctors of the University of Paris in the Middle Ages who held THAT PARISH PRIESTS WERE OF DIVINE INSTITUTION, being the [as regards the universally rejected opinion] successors of the disciples of Christ" (Cath. Ency., VII, 324) [emphasis mine]

This is another one of those irrelevant quotes. So what? We don't claim PARISH priests were of Divine institution any more than Baptists claim YOUTH ministers were of Divine institution. We do claim that the threefold Bishop, Priest, and Deacon are of Divine institution. More on that below when we get to the Hierarchy.

To be completely accurate, the quote in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1913) actually reads -- Volume 7 under "Hierarchy" page 324 --

"....who held that parish priests were of Divine institution, being (in this opinion) the successors of the (72) disciples of Christ. This opinion was DEFENDED, in more recent times, by certain Jansenists, by Van Espen, and a few other canonists (Houwen, 'De parochorum statu', Louvain, 1848, 7 sqq.)."

Regardless, PARISH priests are certainly of ECCLESIASTICAL institution whether or not they can be traced back to the 72 disciples (Luke 10). There weren't such things as "parishes" as we know them today in New Testament times. The closest to that would be the congregation. When the Christian Church expanded later distinctions in jurisdiction were necessary. Under the section on "Hierarchy of the Early Church," the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA states (vol 12, p. 326)

"The word hierarchy is used here to denote the three grades of bishop, priest, and deacon (ministri). According to Catholic doctrine (Council of Trent, sess XXIII, can vi), this threefold gradation owes its existence to Divine institution."

But the word hierarchy is also used in a WIDER sense and would include the following as merely of ecclesiastical origin --

"Such are cardinals, nuncios, delegates, patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, vicars-general, archdeacons, deans, PARISH PRIESTS, and curates." (ibid)

No big revelation here either any more than Baptists admitting that YOUTH ministers and MUSIC ministers are not of Divine institution.

KY> "In the Roman Church the CHANGE had taken place apparently when, IN THE COURSE OF THE THIRD OR FOURTH CENTURY, priests BECAME the ordinary ministers of baptism" (Legislation on the Sacraments, 16). [emphasis mine]

Another irrelevant quote. Baptism was early on administered by the Bishop. Today, in case of emergency, it can be administered by any Christian believer. The sacrament of Baptism itself is what is important and that was instituted and commanded by Jesus Himself (John 3:5; Matt 28:19). In the Latin church, priests or deacons are the ordinary ministers of Baptism. And who knows what this "Legislation on the Sacraments" book is -- I would like to have that source also to see what is missing.

KY> "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED" (Cath. Ency., XII, 406, 415). [emphasis mine]

As already pointed out, this quote does not exist. It was an invention of O.C. Lambert (see page 61 of his book). The word "EVOLVED" is never once used in the articles on "Priest" and "Priesthood" in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (volume 12, pages 406 to 417). On the contrary, the Encyclopedia states --

"But the Sacrifice of the Mass indicates only one side of the priesthood; the other side is revealed in the power of forgiving sin, for the exercise of which the priesthood is just as necessary as it is for the power of consecrating and sacrificing. Like the general power to bind and to loose (cf. Matt 16:19; 18:18), the power of remitting and retaining sins was solemnly bestowed on the Church by Christ (cf. John 20:21ff). Accordingly, the Catholic priesthood has the INDISPUTABLE RIGHT to trace its origin in this respect also to the Divine Founder of the Church."

"Far from being an 'unjustifiable usurpation of Divine powers', the priesthood forms so indispensable a foundation of Christianity that its removal would entail the destruction of the whole edifice. A Christianity without a priesthood CANNOT be the Church of Christ.

"This conviction is strengthened by consideration of the psychological impossibility of the Protestant assumption that from the end of the first century onward, Christendom tolerated without struggle or protest the unprecedented usurpation of the priests, who without credentials or testimony suddenly arrogated Divine powers with respect to the Eucharist, and, on the strength of a fictitious appeal to Christ, laid on baptized sinners the grievous burden of public penance as an indispensable condition of the forgiveness of sin.

"As for the 'universal priesthood', on which Protestantism relies in its denial of the special priesthood, it may be said that Catholics also believe in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer.

"For this reason the historical dogmatic development did not and could not follow the course it would have followed if in the primitive Church two opposing trains of thought (i.e. the universal versus the special priesthood) had contended for supremacy until one was vanquished. The history of dogma attests, on the contrary, that both ideas advanced harmoniously through the centuries, and have never disappeared from the Catholic mind.

"As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dial cum Tryph, cxvi), Irenaeus (Adv haer IV,viii,3), and Origen (De orat xxviii,9; In Levit hom ix,1), to Augustine (De civit Dei XX,x) and Leo the Great (Sermo iv,1) and thence to St. Thomas (Summas, III, Q.lxxxii, a.1) and the Roman Catechism. And YET ALL these writers recognized, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the special priesthood in the Church."

(THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, volume 12, page 415)

For a detailed study on the sacrament of Penance traced from Christ's words to His apostles in John 20:21-23 through the entire history of the Christian church, see A HISTORY OF PENANCE by Oscar D. Watkins.

For a detailed study on the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist from Christ's words of institution in the New Testament through the entire history of the Christian church, see A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST by Darwell Stone. Both are two volumes each.

KY> More official Catholic authorities speak of the evolution of Catholicism:

KY> "One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early." [Ibid., XII, p. 414]

This one I wanted to save for last because it is so far out of context it is ridiculous. Obviously, Bateman/Yong-Jae have not checked with the Encyclopedia to see what in the world they are quoting -- also found in Lambert's anti-Catholic book, pages 18 and 61.

Under the section "The Divine Institution of the Priesthood" where this quote appears, the paragraph in the Encyclopedia begins....

"ACCORDING TO THE PROTESTANT VIEW....." (volume 12, p. 414)

That is the context of the above quote. In other words, according to the PROTESTANT viewpoint, one is forced to admit the corruption of Christianity began very early since they deny the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic Church. To quote it fully -- (emphasis added)

"One is indeed forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early (END OF FIRST CENTURY), since it CANNOT BE DENIED that Clement of Rome (Ep ad Cor 44,4), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache, 14), and Tertullian (De bapt, 17; De praesc haer, 41; De exhort cast, 7) RECOGNIZE AN OFFICIAL PRIESTHOOD WITH THE OBJECTIVE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. The corruption quickly spread throughout the whole East and West, and persisted unchecked during the Middle Ages, until the Reformation finally succeeded in restoring to Christianity its original purity." (volume 12, p. 414)

In other words, ACCORDING TO THE PROTESTANT VIEW, the Church fell into complete apostasy on the sacrament of the Eucharist until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. So much for the "gates of hell" not prevailing on Christ's Church (Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15). In reply to all of this, the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA goes on to state --

"If it is true that 'the reception of the idea of sacrifice led to the idea of the ecclesiastical priesthood' [citing a Protestant source] and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then the PROOF of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must be regarded as ESTABLISHED, once it is SHOWN that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence of Christianity." (volume 12, p. 414)

As evidence of this I will re-copy an article by Catholic Answers on the Eucharist and Christ's words of institution --

From THIS ROCK (Sept 1993) -- the magazine of Catholic apologetics

Touto poieite eis ton emen anamnesin = "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)

POIEIN ("DO") has sacrificial overtones. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the OT, there are about seventy sacrificial uses of poiein. One example: "Now this is what you shall OFFER [Gr poieseis] upon the ALTAR: two lambs a year old, day by day, continually" (see Exodus 29:38).

ANAMNESIS ("REMEMBRANCE") also has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight times in the NT and the Greek OT. All but once (Wisdom 16:6) it is in a sacrificial context: "There is in these SACRIFICES a REMINDER [Gr anamnesis] of sin year after year" (Heb 10:3).

"And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a MEMORIAL portion [Gr anamnesis] to be OFFERED by fire to the Lord" (Lev 24:7).

"On the day of your shall blow over your burnt OFFERINGS and over the SACRIFICES of your peace OFFERINGS; they shall serve you for REMEMBRANCE [Gr anamnesis] before your God" (Num 10:10).

Psalm 38 (39) is titled "A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING" [Gr anamnesin]. Psalm 70 (71) is titled, "To the choir-master. A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING" [Gr anamnesin].

In these cases the term ANAMNESIS can be translated as "memorial portion," "memorial offering," or "memorial sacrifice."

Thus in the remaining two occurances of ANAMNESIS (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), Christ's words "DO THIS in REMEMBRANCE of Me," can be translated as "OFFER THIS for my memorial SACRIFICE." Given the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, there is little doubt this translation is appropriate.

To tell someone, "OFFER THIS for my MEMORIAL SACRIFICE," is to direct him to fulfill a priestly function (see Heb 5:1). So the Church has correctly regarded Christ's words as the institution of the apostles' priesthood and as the basis for all future priests who OFFER the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Summing up all the above evidence for a ministerial priesthood, I will quote from the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1967) --

"There is little quarrel about the pastoral function of the Apostles and presbyter-bishops who were ordained to continue their ministry. Early in Christ's public ministry the Twelve were sent to preach the Kingdom of God, to exhort to repentance and to heal the sick by an anointing with oil (Mk 6:7-13), an early foreshadowing of the prebyteral ministry of healing as encouraged by St. James (Jas 5:14-16).

"On the night of the Resurrection, Christ's ministry of forgiveness was entrusted to the Apostles in the words: 'As the Father has sent me, so also I send you....Whose sins YOU shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU shall retain, they are retained' (Jn 20:23).

"But what of a strictly sacrificial ministry, so essential to the concept of priesthood? The Council of Trent, in its decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, taught that Christ ordained the Apostles priests at the Last Supper, adding 'By the words "Do this in commemoration of me, etc." as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer His sacrifice....'

"It is difficult, however, to believe that the sacrificial aspect of the [Last] Supper was lost upon the Apostles and their Jewish converts. The words 'This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many unto the remission of sins' (Mt 26:28) had an historical connotation that could not have been missed by any Jew. The words recalled an older covenant or alliance between God and the Jewish people that was sealed in blood (Ex 24:1-8).

"Accordingly, in commanding His Apostles to do what He had done, Christ effectively entrusted to them a ministry of sacrifice."


For some of the background and concluding remarks, see BATEMAN ON TRIAL Part 2

Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links