Why be Catholic?


Sola Scriptura?


Q. I would be interested to know where Mary’s Immaculate Conception is referenced in the Bible. I would also like to have reference to her being/remaining sinless. Thank you.

A. Dear Michelle,

Before I answer your questions let me explain a fundamental difference between the sources of Catholic Doctrine and Protestant Doctrine.

The source for Catholic Doctrine is:

All that Jesus taught His disciples which were both written and orally transmitted.

The source for Protestant Doctrine is:

Many things that Jesus taught His disciples, but not all because limited to:

  1. Only what is in the  Bible after Luther removed 7 books.
  2. A few doctrines adopted from Catholicism

Because Protestants are bound to the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura they judge Catholic Doctrine to be suspect when teachings cannot be found explicitly in scripture. They do not seem to be aware that the Bible is a derived source. A sacred secondary source. A source derived from the primary source which is the teaching of Jesus Christ to His disciples.

The Catholic Church derives her teaching from the primary source. Catholic teaching and the Bible are both derived from the primary source, the teachings of Jesus. For this reason, nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts anything in the Bible because they are both derived from the same source. Everything that the Catholic Church teaches can not be found explicitly in Sacred Scripture. But, it can be found in the historic teaching of the Catholic Church which is derived from what the apostles taught and handed down to their successors….that which Jesus taught.

So when you ask,

Where is Mary’s Immaculate Conception  referenced in the Bible? I would also like to have reference to her being/remaining sinless.

This is because you have been taught that nothing must be believed as Christians, unless it can be found in Scripture. But this source (the Bible)  is an incomplete record of all that Jesus did and taught. This is clearly affirmed in Scripture.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book

John 21:25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Ironically, even as Protestants criticize Catholics for believing things that are not in scripture they unwittingly believe things that also are not to be found explicitly in Scripture.

First and foremost, the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura  is nowhere to be found in scripture.

Neither is the Doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation to be found explicitly in scripture. These were adopted from Catholicism.

For these reasons the Immaculate Conception and perpetual sinlessness of Mary cannot be found explicitly in scripture. But then, again, neither can Sola Scriptura .

For what Scriptural evidence we do have you might want to explore the following post:

Immaculate Conception

Jesus was Born at the end of December!

UnknownQ. Was Jesus really born on December 25th? I have heard he was born in the spring.


 God has allowed His Church to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on the right day or very close to it. This is not mandatory or a matter of faith, but why doubt it without very good reason?

The argument for assigning late December as the rightful date of the birth of Yeshua is based on the time Zacharias was told that Elizabeth would conceive a child.

Osservatore Romano: December 24,1998

“December 25 is an historical date,” Professor Tommaso Federici, Professor at the Pontifical Urbanian University and a consultant to two Vatican Congregations, has stressed. In an article in the Osservatore Romano on December 24, he wrote: “December 25 is explained as the ‘Christianization’ of a pagan feast, ‘birth of the Sol Invictus’; or as the symmetrical balance, an aesthetic balance between the winter solstice (Dec. 21-22) and the spring equinox (March 23-24).

But a discovery of recent years has shed definitive light on the date of the Lord’s birth. As long ago as 1958, the Israeli scholar Shemaryahu Talmon published an in-depth study on the calendar of the Qumran sect [Ed. based , in part, on Parchment Number 321 — 4 Q 321 — of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls,], and he reconstructed without the shadow of doubt the order of the sacerdotal rota system for the temple of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 24, 7-18) in New Testament times.

Here the family of Abijah, of which Zechariah was a descendant, father of John the herald and forerunner (Luke 1, 5), was required to officiate twice a year, on the days 8-14 of the third month, and on the days 24-30 of the eighth month. This latter period fell at about the end of September. It is not without reason that the Byzantine calendar celebrated ‘John’s conception’ on September 23 and his birth nine months later, on June 24. The ‘six months’ after the Annunciation established as a liturgical feast on March 25, comes three months before the forerunner’s birth, prelude to the nine months in December: December 25 is a date of history.”

Therefore, If Zacharias served during the end of September and Elizabeth conceived shortly thereafter, we can place the date of Jesus’ birth during the month of Tevet, in late December. The explanation is as follows:

1. Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, was conceived just after Yom Kippur (late Sept) and born 9 months later in (late June).

* John’s father (Zacharias) was a Levite of the house of Abijah who was assigned to serve in the temple during the 8th and 34 weeks of the year. If the Angel’s announcement to Zechariah was the 34th week that would have been during the High Holiday of Yom Kippur.
* It is written that John was conceived shortly after this tour of duty (Luke 1:23-4), and Yom Kippur. Thus, John would have been born around (late June).

2. Jesus was conceived in (late March), six months after John the Baptist (Luke 1:24-27, 36) near Passover, and born 9 months later during late December.

Luke 1:36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

3. Circumstantial Evidences:

Church history, since the time of the late first century, has attested to a late December birth.

Hippolytus, in the second century AD, argued that this was Christ’s birthday.

In the fourth century,

John Chrysostom (347-407) argued that December 25th was the correct date. Chrysostom taught that Zechariah received the message about John’s birth on the Day of Atonement and John the Baptist was born sometime in June or July, and the birth of Jesus took place six months later, in late December (or early January). There was never a question about the period of Jesus’ birth either in the East or in the West; only in the recent years this date was challenged.
Early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. In the normal traffic of shepherds they move around and come near Bethlehem from November to March of the year. But then these were a special class of Levitical shepherds who kept the sacrificial lambs. They do not move around because they supply the lambs for daily sacrifice from whom people bought their approved lambs, which are blemishless. The fact that the Angels announced the arrival of the perfect sacrificial lamb to these shepherds indicates this. The climate near Bethlehem is more like Southern California, it is after all Mediterranian. It is not a Canadian or Russian climate.

Alfred Edersheim, a Messianic Jew, wrote, “There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds which seem to me historically untenable.”

Edersheim notes that Megillot Taanit states that the 9th of Tevet is considered the day of Christ’s birth, and that puts the birth of Yeshua sometime during late December.

If Zacharias served during Yom Kippur and Elizabeth conceived shortly thereafter, we can place the date of Jesus’ birth during the month of Tevet, in late December.

Both views can be seen HERE

There Was NO Papal Primacy for the First 1000 Years of Christianity!

papacyKim: In the first 1,000 years there was no papal primacy,what church are you refering to ?

BFHU: There absolutely was papal primacy attributed to the Bishop of Rome. One of the reasons I was convinced of this is that while reading about some controversy in the early Church ( I was not even researching evidence for papal primacy)I saw that historically, it was always decided, that to settle a matter, they would go to the Bishop of Rome for a final decision. I don’t remember what historical event I was looking up back then but here are a few ancient examples way, way, way, before 1000AD

In the writings of the Early Church Fathers the fact of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is taken for granted. Before, 80 A.D. the Corinthian Church kicked out their bishop. Appeals were made to Pope Clement I,(who died in 80 AD) the fourth Bishop of Rome to settle the matter. And yet, the Apostle St. John was still alive at Ephesus and living a lot closer to Corinth than Rome. Never-the-less the appeals were made to the Pope/Bishop of Rome rather than to one of the 12 original apostles,  because all knew that only the Bishop of Rome had the authority to make a binding decision.Peter & the Keys

Pope Clement I: “You therefore, who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters(priests) and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him (Jesus) through us (Pope & Church) let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger”(First Letter to the Corinthians)

St. Irenaeus180 AD, a student of St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), exhorts all “Christians (to) be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition/Teaching.

St. Irenaeus: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a small volume as this, the succession of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all,  founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us, after having been announced to men, by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the Churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic traditions. (Against Heresies)

St Peter'sHe then made a list of all the Bishops of Rome up to his time. There is nothing in his writing that sounds like he is trying to be convincing because he is teaching something new, but rather that all Christians took for granted that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

Also, for 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred. So, even the pagans knew that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church.

A Roman Emperor’s greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the emperor Decius (249-251 A.D.) one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian Church made the following remark:

I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome. (Christian History, Issue 27 1990, vol IX, No. 3, p22)

Decius said this after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250 A.D.
Beginning Apologetics by Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham



Eastern Orthodox Red Eggs

Eastern Orthodox Red Eggs

History Disproves Sola Scriptura

Monisha: Scripture is inanimate !! Oh really! I am aghast. Hebrews 4:12 says “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

BFHU: Dear Monisha, Don’t worry. I said Scripture was inanimate, I did not say or mean that it was inactive, powerless or worthless. I was not speaking about Scripture in general but about a specific aspect of it. Many people like to quote, “Scripture interprets Scripture.” But that is just simply not true. Other Scriptures can help us understand Scripture and help us interpret it but it cannot and it does not give one single, clear, unequivocal interpretation for difficult or disputed passages. Here is what I said,

Only people can interpret Scripture. Scripture is inanimate and unable to infallibly give the correct interpretation all by itself all of the time.

You clearly agree with me on the second half of my sentence below:

Monisha: and moreover subjecting the word of god to the interpretation of sinful people is a grave mistake. Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God’s word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason.

BFHU: I agree. Especially for people 2000 years after the birth of Christ. The best interpreters would be those who knew the apostles and heard what Jesus taught directly from their lips. The earlier the exegete the better and the later the exegete the less and less reliable.

Monisha:Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God’s Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God’s word means and how to apply it.

BFHU: Again I agree.

Monisha:John 14:26, “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
Luke 12:12, “for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

BFHU:  Do you think that this is a promise to you, and to each and every sincere reader of Scripture? I used to think so when i was a sola scriptura Protestant. But this promise was not made to all believers but only to the apostles first of all. And secondly, you will notice the promise does not refer at all to Sacred Scripture. It is a promise to the apostles that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things WITHOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT, b/c it did not exist at all at the time and would not be finalized for another 400 years. And thirdly, the Holy Spirit would remind them of EVERYTHING Jesus said to them. Can you or I remember one thing Jesus said without the aid of the Bible and only with the aid of the Holy Spirit? No, because we were not there. So these verses do not support the theory of Luther, that anyone and everyone could, with the aid of the Holy
Spirit interpret scripture accurately. These verses just are not about the interpretation of scripture at all.

images-1Now, let me be clear. I do believe that the Holy Spirit aids us in understanding scripture and applying it to our lives. But I do not believe that the Holy Spirit has been promised to us in order to enable us to infallibly interpret scripture. This is what Luther believed would prove to be true, but now, a mere 500 years later Luther’s “church” has splintered into 30,000 different denominations because people of sincere faith read and interpreted scriptures differently. The reason for all of this disunity, contrary to the desires of Christ, is because:

Only people can interpret Scripture. Scripture is inanimate and unable to infallibly give the correct interpretation all by itself all of the time.

Since Protestantism has hitched itself to the horse of Sola Scriptura, it has crashed and splintered into thousands of pieces. This was inevitable when Luther et al. unhinged themselves from the Historic Church founded by Jesus Christ and began to follow the unproven, unscriptural theory of sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura: A Protestant Tradition of Men

St Peter's

How to Test Authenticity of Sacred Tradition?


MONISHA: How do you test the authenticity of the traditions (if they are not to be found in the Scriptures)?

BFHU: Were these doctrines believed by Christians always and everywhere? This is also partly how some books were eliminated from the canon…if they taught things not believed by Christians since the beginning.

“MONISHA: These doctrines were hammered out centuries before Martin Luther arrived on the scene by the Councils of the Catholic Church.”
Just because these doctrines were hammered out centuries before Martin Luther arrived on the scene isnt reason enough to accept them just as the doctrines that came about after him isnt reason enough to reject them!

BFHU: So, do you think doctrines can be created continuously? OK but I do not. I want to know what Christians, who were taught the pure gospel by Jesus himself taught Christians. I want to know what the earliest Christians believed and practiced. I do not trust a doctrine invented 1500 years after Christ. Sorry. You have the freedom to do so if you want to. I, however,  was searching for historic Christianity not a Christianity that was a mere 500 years old and relied on me being an infallible interpreter of Scripture. That was a heavy burden.

MONISHA: What is the basis of your claim to “It just so happened that Luther liked these doctrines and therefore adopted them even though they were not spelled out in Scripture alone.”?

BFHU: How else can you explain that Luther rejected some doctrine and accepted other doctrines, both of which, could not be found explicitly in scripture?

MONISHA: Why do you believe the doctrines of Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. to be true even though they are not explicitly stated in Scripture, and at the same time refuse to believe the Sola Scriptura doctrine (even though reasonable verses point towards it)! And i think that is nothing less than hypocrisy.

BFHU: I believe these doctrines because they have been taught and believed by Christians since the first century of Christianity. I cannot prove scientifically that they are true. But historical evidence supports them as authentic and ancient. Just like I believe that George Washington was the first President of the US. I was not alive then. I cannot know this on my own. I have to rely on historical documentation. And it is also historical documentation that upholds Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. I trust it because it is closest to Jesus in time. But you are free to reject it.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter. You are trusting your interpretation of “reasonable verses” that point (do not command) to Sola Scriptura. Therefore you accept Scripture only and reject historic Christianity. This is a tradition of men.–>Protestant Tradition: Sola Scriptura