Monday, September 24, 2012

Converting Protestants - A Secret Method

A Eucharistic Procession in Springfield Missouri
Feast of Corpus Christi 2012
Seeking photo credit please.
I have a secret.  I know how to get more Protestants into the Catholic Church.  Would you like to know?  It's guaranteed to work with shocking effectiveness.  You'll get more Protestant converts to the Catholic Church than you know what to do with.  They'll come in small numbers at first, just a trickle really, but that will slowly grow into a torrent.  You won't know what to do with them all.  You'll probably have to build bigger parishes or add on to existing ones.  From these converts you will find the most faithful and passionate Catholics in your whole diocese.  You'll even get an increase in vocations, as Protestant ministers will convert too, many of whom will seek ordination to the priesthood under the terms of the Pastoral Provision that allows for married priests.  Did I peak your interest?  Well, sit down and read because I'm not just going to come out and tell you.  No.  Now that I have your attention, you'll have to read through my article.

You see I am a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church myself, and not just any type of Protestant, but three types to be exact.  I was raised as a nominal Baptist.  As a young adult I became a passionate Evangelical, and a staunch Fundamentalist one at that.  It was here I was instructed on how to be an anti-Catholic, that the Church of Rome was really the "Whore of Babylon" written of in the Apocalypse, and the Roman Catholic Church was a counterfeit Christian "cult."  I was part of the fastest growing Evangelical movement in the United States during the 1990s -- Calvary Chapel.  I even studied to become a pastor in this movement, and nearly gained a pastoral role at my local affiliate before turning it down to pursue a more traditional form of Protestantism.  You see my pastoral studies of Church history and the Jewish roots of the Christian faith led me to understand that the early Christians were much more "catholic" than I was comfortable with.  So I decided to study and experience these "catholic" practises in a good safe Protestant environment.  That's why my wife and I joined a local Episcopal Church.  We spent some time as Episcopalians, learning how to genuflect and make the sign of the cross.  We learnt the meaning of liturgy and that church "services" were really supposed to be an act of worship that is a sacrifice, not just a fellowship for mutual edification.  In time however, we had difficulty accepting the liberal practises of the national province (female priests and acceptance of homosexuality).  My wife also wanted to be part of a larger church that was in communion with a larger number of Christians.  I agreed with her on this, and so, on the Easter Vigil of 2000, Penny and I were received into the Catholic Church.

Our story is not so unique really.  Lot's of Evangelicals become Catholic, and a good portion of those who find the Roman Road do so by following the Canterbury Trail, just as Penny and I did.  It's because our story is not so unique that I happen to know the secret of winning Protestant converts to the Catholic Church.  It's not hard really.  Any Catholic can do it with virtually no practise, no drills, no study and no experimentation.  In other words, it's really no problem.  Curious?  Stay with me.

Ever since the Second Vatican Council there has been this notion among Catholics (both clergy and laity) that in order to attract more Protestants to the Catholic Church we need to be more like them. We need to make our churches look more Protestant, get rid of excessive icons, and make them more "trendy" or "modern" in appearance.  There is been this notion that if we dispense of traditional Catholic music and bring in more protestant-style hymns and praise music, we will attract the Protestants.  Likewise, it has been assumed that if we scale down the mass, get rid of the incense and bells, reduce the chanting, and dispense of many of our time-honoured customs, we will certainly get the Protestants' attention.  Whatever we do, of course, we should never upset the public with fiery homilies that touch on controversial issues.  Or so it was believed, that Protestants desire a more "touchy-feely" kind of worship and message.  Like the Protestants, many Catholics began to focus on the mass as more of a "fellowship service" aimed at mutual edification and community.  Some parishes also introduced rock music into the mass for the younger generation along with all sorts of goofy innovations.  Now to be clear, the Second Vatican Council never called for these things.  In fact, I think it's safe to say the bishops of that council never even imagined them.  This was more of a trend that occurred after the council, and was not necessarily sponsored by the council.  I think it was something that just sort of happened on its own.  Perhaps we could say that people were just caught up in the spirit and emotion of the times, rather than faithfully administering what the conciliar fathers had in mind.

Well, if you're a Catholic who has bought into any of these things, sit down (if your aren't already) because I'm about to burst your bubble.  Here it is.  Brace yourself.  

Protestants do it better.  That's right, Protestants do it better.  When it comes to acting like Protestants, the Protestants do it better.  They have always done it better, and guess what?  They always will do it better.  You, as a Catholic, will never even hold a candle to them.  Their traditional hymns are better.  Their contemporary prayer and praise music is better.  Their pop and rock bands are better.  Their Protestant-style music always has been better than our imitation of it, and it always will be.  It really should be when you think about it.  After all, they invented it.  When it comes to worship, that is a central part of it.  They generally don't focus on the solemn contemplative nature of worship.  Their focus is primarily on community and fellowship, coupled with praise to the Lord, so naturally that genre of music is going to sound better in their churches, not ours, because for them it's much more natural to their understanding of what church is about.  We, as Catholics, can try to imitate them if we want, but we'll never be as good as they are in that area.  The truth is, if all I ever wanted to do was go to church solely for contemporary praise and worship music, I would head down to the local Evangelical mega-church on the other side of town.  I certainly wouldn't go to a Catholic church!  In the 1970s it was nuns singing "Kumbaya."  Yuck!  While today it's praise bands singing the latest from Michael W. Smith, and that's not a whole lot better.  The acoustics are usually bad in Catholic parishes, with all that marble and wooden pews, while Evangelical churches are designed more like sound stages with padded chairs, thick carpeting, track lighting and insulated walls.  When it comes to putting on that kind of environment, the Evangelicals have got us beat, and they always will.  Face it.  Nobody can be as good at Evangelicalism as the Evangelicals themselves. Why would I want to go to a knock off at a local Catholic church? When I could go to the very people who invented that genre of worship thirty to forty years ago?  Duh!  Sorry, but this is how I see it.  If I ever desire to go back to church just for the contemporary worship music and feeling of community, I'll let you know, because my "goodbye" letter of self-excommunication will be lying on my bishop's desk, and I will be sitting in the soft comfortable chair of an Evangelical mega-church while clapping loudly, raising my hands in the air, and singing at the top of my voice, just as I did twenty years ago.  I left that behind for a reason.  Think about it.  I'm not saying that there is something wrong with that style of worship.  On the contrary, I'm saying that if I (as a former Evangelical) wanted that, I would go back to where it is offered best.

Here is another bubble to burst.  Sorry, but the truth is painful sometimes.  When it comes to teaching like Protestants, again, the Protestants do it better.  They have always done it better, and guess what?  They always will do it better.  You, as a Catholic, will never even hold a candle to them.  You want a feeling of "inclusiveness?"  You want a theology that doesn't offend?  Hey, the Protestants literally invented that stuff!  You can go into thousands of Protestant churches today, both traditional and evangelical, and there you may find an assortment of different teachings to fit your personal beliefs.  In one church, you may find a woman standing behind the pulpit as the head pastor of the congregation.  She's the boss, and she's running the whole show.  Some of these churches are fairly "conservative" and some are fairly "progressive."  In fact, you've got a whole range to choose from all across the moral and social spectrum, ranging from left to right, in virtually any city of any relatively large size.  If all I ever wanted was a church I could go to for the purpose of finding an institution that fits my own theological ideals, and not be "offended" by something that disagrees, then I have a whole range to choose from.  I could return to my ancestral Lutheran heritage if that's all I wanted.  Heck! I could even find a couple of Baptist churches in my area who cater to that mentality.  If I like traditional catholic-style worship, without all that commitment to Catholic doctrine, I could just go back to The Episcopal Church.  The point I'm trying to make here is that if adhering to the full and complete teaching of the Catholic Church were not a priority for me, then I have an assortment of other churches to choose from, most of which will cater to exactly what I want.  I could just as easily, and in some cases more conveniently, go to one of those churches instead.  I've always found it amazing that most so-called "Cafeteria Catholics" never do this.  They would, after all, be more honest with themselves if they did.  Why stick with a religion you don't believe in any more?  Anyway, this isn't about them.  It's about me and why I became Catholic in the first place.   The truth is, if I wanted a church that didn't morally challenge me on all levels, even on areas I feel uncomfortable with, then once again my "goodbye" letter of self-excommunication would be laying on my bishop's desk, and I would be comfortably sitting in the chair (or pew) of any number of Protestant churches to my liking.  I left that kind of "freedom" behind for a reason too.  Again, think about it.  I'm not attacking or criticising Protestant churches here.  On the contrary, I'm saying that if I (as a former Evangelical) wanted that, I would go back to where it is offered best.

If I wanted to be more "protestant" in my worship and doctrine, I could easily go back to any Protestant church, and believe me when I say they would welcome me with open arms.  Oh the tales I could tell them, of how "Catholicism failed me" and so forth.  They would just eat it up.  Of course I have no desire to do that, because you see, I love Catholicism.  I love everything about being a Catholic.  I love Catholic worship.  I love Catholic teaching, even the hard stuff I find difficult to put into practise.  I am thankful to be part of a Church that leads me into sacrificial worship and challenges me morally.  By failing some of the moral teachings of the Church, I know God is challenging me.  By going to confession for these sins, I know God is reforming me, and rebuilding me the way HE wants me to be (not the way I want to be, or the way the world says I should be, but the way GOD wants me to be).  By approaching our Eucharistic Lord in the sacrifice of the mass, I know I am having direct physical contact with the Lord, and that it's not just about having a local community get together with good prayer and praise music.  You see, I really dig Catholicism for Catholicism's sake, and that my friends is the secret to winning more Protestant converts, or converts of any type really.  Just be more Catholic!  

Protestants don't convert to Catholicism to be more protestant.  They don't convert because they kinda-wanta-sorta be Catholic.  No!  They convert because they want to BE Catholic, totally Catholic, and fully Catholic in every way.  I'm not talking about the fiancĂ©es of Catholics who are converting for marriage sake.  (Though they could be just as passionate about becoming Catholic too, and many of them are!)  I'm talking about regular Protestants who convert to Catholicism on their own, or as a couple, because they have simply found an interest in the Catholic Church.  I guarantee it wasn't the contemporary worship and feel-good homilies that attracted them.  That I promise you.  No, it was a more traditional-style of Catholic worship that caught their attention, and it was the staunch moral theology of the Catholic Church that challenged them in a way that was refreshing.  This is what draws Protestants, and anybody really, into the Catholic Church, this and nothing else!  Once they get interested, then they learn about the sacraments and sacramentals.  That's secondary to them.  It comes later, as they enter the Church through the RCIA process or some other method.  That isn't what draws them in at first.  The initial draw (the "hook" so to speak) that brings in more converts is so simple really.  Just be more Catholic.  Bring back the traditional style of worship, the Gregorian chants, the old hymns, the sung liturgy, the incense and bells, and by all means, bring back the Eucharistic processions, adorations, and public vespers. Pastors, challenge your flock to LIVE the faith and teach it fully from behind the pulpit -- especially the parts that are difficult to keep.  Ladies, by all means, wear head coverings again, like they used to not so long ago.  Ladies, you have no idea how much a simple hat, veil or mantilla can affect a Protestant (both male and female) who has read the scripture in 1st. Corinthians 11 dozens of times but never understood its meaning.  You have the opportunity to give Protestants a visual testimony that the scriptures are living and breathing within the Catholic Church.  Men, start dressing up for mass again, and for heaven's sake, wear a scapular or bring a rosary with you.  Don't you know that all of these are visible signs that help Protestants see there is something different about you?  Don't you know these things give testimony to a visible faith with material manifestations.  This is something many Protestants are missing in their Protestant churches, some of which put an over-emphasis on spiritualising the Christian faith.  When you show them visible manifestations of the Christian faith, this peaks their curiosity, and it gets them to start questioning things.  I'm not just talking about questions concerning Catholicism, but also questions concerning their own Protestantism.  

Protestants don't seek modernity in Catholic worship.  I guarantee, if that's what they want, they will remain Protestants, and there is nothing you can say or do to attract them.  The ONLY Protestants that will ever seek out the Catholic Church are those who are looking for an anchor to the past.  They want something that is solid and unchanged.  They want a connection to their ancient Christian ancestry.  They want to worship the way their ancestors worshipped, and they want to be morally challenged in a world that is morally fluid.  People seek modernity in shopping malls, automobiles and the workplace.  Where they don't want modernity is in religion.  The only people who want modernity in religion also want modernity in doctrine, and to provide that is to cease to be Catholic.

In truth, the biggest change the Catholic Church ever needed to make, to draw in more Protestants, and converts of all types, was already made over forty years ago.  That was the change of the liturgy from Latin to vernacular languages.  If that's all the Catholic Church ever did, and nothing more, it would have been enough.  Because you see, most Protestants are big on understanding what is going on.  As a tenet of Protestant idealism, worship should be fully understood and in the language of the people.  As beautiful as Latin is, and it is beautiful, its use should be limited in ordinary circumstances.  If for no other reason, just so the people can understand.  However, that doesn't mean we should scrap Latin all together.  Far from it.  It should be used sparingly in vernacular masses, so as to maintain heritage and mystery, while it should also be used exclusively in celebrations of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (Tridentine Mass), so as to maintain a solid connection to the Church's past.  This is part of what Pope Benedict XVI refers to as the "hermeneutic of continuity."  Unfortunately, there was an attempt in the 1970s through 2000 to reach out to Protestants by adopting some of their ways, and I am sad to report that is a major "turn off" to most of them.  They watch our contemporary masses, with our contemporary pop music, and they say to themselves: "Well, that's nice, but I can get the same thing much better in my local Protestant church."  However, show them a high mass, with all of the chants, smells and bells of that ol' time religion, and I guarantee you that most Protestant guests sitting in your pews are not going to say to themselves that they can get the same thing in their Protestant churches.  

You see, the thing about the old Catholic traditions is that they're infectious.  Once people get a taste of them, they tend to come back for more.  This is why many Protestant churches historically would attack Catholic doctrines and tell wild tales (usually exaggerated or blatantly untrue) to scare their congregations away from Catholicism.  Today we call this a type of Protestant Fundamentalism, and it's popular in many Evangelical churches (not all, but many).  The pastors of these churches, many of them former Catholics themselves, know all too well that if you expose an Evangelical to ancient Catholic tradition, with homilies that challenge their moral sensibilities, there is a good chance that Evangelical may come back for more.   So they have to scare their congregations away from that by calling the Catholic Church the "Mystery Whore of Babylon" from the Apocalypse, a "cult," and the pope the "Antichrist."  They're not stupid.  They know this is the only way to keep many in their congregation from going back to Rome, and they employ this method frequently, especially if they are former Catholics themselves.  There will always be room for apologetics in dealing with these lies, but that is something that can be best left to the apologists.  On the other hand, the Anglicans figured this out early on, and simply adopted their own liturgy and rituals that mirrored Catholicism, knowing full well this was historically needed to keep people within their fold.  In the end, it actually led some Anglicans back to Rome.

As for you, the average Catholic sitting in the pews, the answer is simple.  Do you want to be an Evangelist?  Do you want to help bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church?  Do you want more converts, regardless of where they come from?  Then just be Catholic!  Encourage your priest to bring back the old customs and apply them to the new mass. Encourage him to challenge you from behind the pulpit by teaching the Catholic faith in its fullness -- even the difficult parts.  If you're a woman, dress modestly and wear a veil (or hat) of some kind to mass.  If you're a man, put on some slacks and a nice shirt and scapular, crucifix or carry a rosary.  Learn the catechism and teach your children the same.  Kneel for communion and receive on the tongue, if you are physically able, as this is the normal way Catholics receive communion all over the world and at all papal masses.  Take your Catholic Christian faith seriously, and start living according to its teachings.  For I promise, no Protestant was ever attracted to Catholicism by the testimony of a "Cafeteria Catholic" or one who didn't practise the faith seriously.

If Catholics will simply rediscover our tradition, and live according to who we really are, then I promise you, more Protestants (and converts of all stripes) will come into the Catholic Church.  By that I mean not just a little more, but a lot more, and you might be surprised just how many.

------------------------------------------------
Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of 'CatholicInTheOzarks.com -- Apologetics and random musings from a Catholic in the Bible Belt.'

BOOKS BY THIS BLOGGER...
A Catholic Guide
to the Last Days
Catholicism for
Protestants


Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Did Jesus Have A Wife?

Photo of Coptic papyrus allegedly reporting a wife of Jesus Christ.
Public Domain in USA -- Wiki Commons
(New York Times) - A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity...

read the full story
A scrap of papyrus dating from the fourth century contains a very interesting inscription.  It contains the words "my wife" in reference to a saying from Jesus.  It also mentions the phrase "she will be able to be my disciple," giving rise to much speculation in the academic world about the possibility of some early Christian traditions that account for Jesus being married and having a female disciple/apostle.  Surely, this will give ammunition for many in the world to attack the traditions of historic Christianity and especially the Catholic Church.

Okay, now before anyone hyperventilates, let me start by saying this is much to do about nothing.  First of all, we are not just talking about an obscure piece of papyrus here, dated about 200 years after the time of Christ, but we are talking about an obscure SCRAP of papyrus here, dated about 200 years after Christ.  It's just a smaller piece of a much bigger document that is cut off mid-sentence.  The text says: "Jesus said to them 'My wife...'"  To which I must ask; my wife... what?  That could mean anything.  Is he talking about a woman he's allegedly married to?  Or is he talking about something completely different.  What if the full sentence reads; "Jesus said to them 'My wife... shall be the Church.'"  That would be more in line with historic Church tradition, which consistently referred to the Church as the "bride of Christ," but we don't know.  We can't know, because we don't have the rest of the text.  All we have is this scrap which is cut off mid-sentence.  To formulate any kind of a conclusion from this, especially a conclusion that contradicts the settled tradition of the early Church period, and the historic tradition of all Christianity, would be highly presumptuous to say the least.  It is after all, a scrap of papyrus, not a full document, and it does come from an obscure source in ancient Christian history (southern Egypt), which we cannot know the full context.  So to make any kind of a big issue out of this is rather foolish.  It is a curiosity and nothing more.

Second, we in the twenty-first century are quick to assume the "Jesus" in this text is Jesus of Nazareth that is mentioned in the gospels.  It could be.  However, it doesn't have to be.  The name Jesus was actually fairly popular in that part of the world during that time.  The actual Hebrew name for Jesus is "Yashua," which is probably the name used by his disciples when he walked with them, and also by his mother when she called him for dinner.  If translated directly from Hebrew to English "Yashua" becomes "Joshua," a common name in many languages today.  There were probably dozens of Jewish rabbis with that name during the time period of the early Church.  This is why names from that time period were specified by location, such as "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Joseph of Arimathea" for example.  There were lots of men by the names Jesus and Joseph during that time, and surnames were not a common feature back then, so location was often used to clarify.  Was the Jesus in this papyrus the same "Jesus of Nazareth" we know from the gospels.  Maybe, but none of us can say for sure.  The scrap of text does not specify.

Third and finally, we have to look at the historic teaching of the Church, because admittedly, nobody in the modern world would even know about Jesus, were it not for the Church faithfully passing down its message about him.  Yes, that's right, I said it.  Were it not for the Church, and its faithful mission of spreading the gospel, a papyrus text like this one would be rather meaningless to us.  "Some guy named  'Jesus' is talking about a wife," we would say.  "Big deal! Who is Jesus anyway?"  So let's give a little credit where credit is due.  The only reason why we know about Jesus, and why he is so important to our Western civilisation, is because of the faithful mission of the Church, preaching him to us for centuries.  So this is where accepted Christian tradition comes in.  Many non-Catholic Christians (Evangelicals, Baptist, Pentecostals, or just Protestants in general) will immediately appeal to Scripture for the answer.  As well they should, because after all, the Scriptures do tell us a lot about Jesus of Nazareth.  Therein the pages of the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and all the Epistles, they will find no mention of Jesus ever getting married or having a wife.  In fact, the message would seem to be quite clear.  Jesus was celibate.  To the conspiracist however, that's not good enough.  To the devotees of Dan Brown's fictional novels (The Di Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, etc.) the Bible may be "corrupted" by a wicked Catholic hierarchy bent on keeping such "scandalous" information secret from the general public.  Of course, such nonsense makes for great literary fiction, and nobody can deny that Mr. Brown is a great entertainer, but is he really an "Indiana Jones" who has cracked open the greatest conspiracy of all time?  My hat goes off to Mr. Brown, as he has managed to excite the imagination of millions with his novels -- novels that he himself admits are fiction.

So what it really comes down to is this.  There are two gospels in the modern world today.  There is the historical gospel given to us by the ancient Church.  Then there is the conspiratorial gospel given to us by modern fictional novelists.  I have yet to discover the redeeming part of believing the later, as it mentions nothing about saving souls or improving the quality of human life.  It is, in the end, just a conspiracy theory.  If that is what one wants to base one's beliefs on, then who am I to deny them that belief.  I just think it's a rather empty belief when you really stop and think about it.  Let's assume it's all true, just to play devil's advocate, so now what?  If it's all true, where do we go from here?  Nobody seems to have a very good answer to that question.  Thankfully, it's not true, and to seriously entertain such a thought is rather silly when you really stop to think about it.

Our Protestant brethren have only Scripture to rely on, and in defending their beliefs against such conspiracies, that will only get them so far.  The Bible, after all, is a Catholic book.  It was compiled by Catholics in the fourth century, organised and canonised by Catholics in the fourth century, and ultimately published and distributed by Catholics in every century since.  As a Catholic, I find it comforting to know just how much Catholicism has really contributed to the religion of the Protestants.  That being said, the Bible is a book of Tradition.  It's not a complete compendium of the Tradition of the Apostles, but rather a fairly large cross section of it.  It was compiled, canonised and published in the fourth century for one reason and one reason only.  That was to combat the heresy of the Arians.

You see, as early as the first century, the apostles wrote of doctrinal dangers presented to the early Church.  The two biggest heresies that faced the apostles in the first century were both among the Greeks and the Jews.  The Jews put forward the heresy of the Judaizers, which was later called the Ebionite Heresy.  This was the notion that Christians must follow the law of Moses, effectively becoming good Jews before they could be rightfully called Christians.  The Greeks put forward the heresy of Gnosticism, which eventually led to many different forms of heresy throughout the centuries, one of which was the Arian Heresy.  The point here is that the early Church was immediately confronted not only with physical persecution from the Jewish and Pagan world, but it was also confronted with various corruptions and counterfeit gospels within the Church itself.  These the apostles strongly condemned.  They embraced the persecution, but they condemned the heresy.  It's important to understand that.  This is how the term "Catholic" came into being in the late first century to early second century, so as to distinguish between those Christians who rightly accepted the "whole" gospel of Jesus Christ taught by the apostles, verses those who cherry picked the teachings of the apostles to come up with their own heretical version of the gospel.  The Arians were a Gnostic sect who denied the divinity of Jesus and compiled their own version of the Bible to back it up.  In response to this, the "Catholic" Christians, meaning those who strictly followed the teachings of the apostles by accepting the "whole" gospel, were forced to compile their own Bible in return.  This later became the Bible we use today.  Thus, it was the Tradition of the apostles, faithfully kept by the Catholic Christians, that gave us the Bible we have today.  Where are the Arians today?  Where are the Ebionites today?  They're gone.  Oh sure, you can find modern little splinter groups today who are desperately trying to resurrect their teachings, but the lessons of history tell us they will suffer the same fate as those who went before them -- that is obscurity followed by extinction.  There is a reason why the Catholic gospel is the only one that has survived and flourished into the modern era.  It's because it's true!  Even the Protestants admit that, by using the very same Bible the Catholics published (minus some Old Testament books they removed for not tickling their fancy).  My point here is that Christianity is not just a religion of the book.  I would reverse it by saying the Book is the product of the religion.  Christianity is a religion of Tradition -- Apostolic Tradition to be specific.  It is the Tradition that gave us the Bible, and it is the Tradition that made Christianity the religion of Western civilisation.  There were many competing traditions shortly after the time of Jesus, and Jesus knew this would happen, which is why he gave us Apostles with authority to recount the events of his life and teach his word.  The Gnostics didn't have this.  Their religion was man-made, created not from the Apostles, but from men who did not know Jesus, and were simply trying to imitate the Apostolic message.  Lots of books were published under the spurious traditions of these men.  That's why the successors of the apostles took nearly a century to painstakingly go through all of them, and determine which were from their Apostolic masters and which were not.  This question was settled 1,645 years ago, when in AD 367 St. Athanasius of Alexandria Egypt gave us the list of 27 books we now hold as New Testament Scripture today, in their present order, Matthew through Revelation.  Of the hundreds of manuscripts circulating about Jesus at the time, many from Gnostic and Ebionite sources, it was these 27 books the early Catholic Church decided to be indisputable and part of the Apostolic Tradition.  Other books they classified as "orthodox" but not inspired.  While some they classified as "heterodox" meaning "heresy."  All of this was based on the Tradition of the apostles, handed down and faithfully kept by their successors, in writing, word of mouth, prayer and liturgy.  We can either accept it, or we can reject it, but if we reject it, we are left with nothing but a mountain of conflicting conspiracy theories, that serve no purpose other than to sell fictional novels.

After all is said and done, the question that must be asked in all of this is "why?"  Again, let's play devil's advocate.  If indeed Jesus Christ was married, "why" pray tell, would his followers try to hide it?  I mean seriously, what was their reason?  There is certainly nothing wrong with marriage.  The Church teaches that it is a sacrament of God!   Matrimony is a holy institution, according to the Catholic Church, on par with the holy orders of priests.  Celibacy is not mandated of all Catholic priests either.  Exceptions are given in the Western rite of the Catholic Church, and married priests are somewhat the norm in the Eastern rites.  So it's not like sex within marriage is seen as some kind of dirty thing, because it's clearly not.  The Church actually blesses it.  The Church likewise has no problem admitting that Saint Peter, the first pope, was a married man.  So what's the problem?  If Jesus was married, why not just say so?  Why hide it?  This is the question we must seriously ask ourselves.  Outside of ridiculous conspiracy theories there is no answer.  If Jesus were married, the Church would simply tell us so.  That doesn't necessarily mean he would have had any children, but if he did, again the Church would tell us so.  Such information would have been very hard to suppress in the early Church.  I dare say, it would have been impossible to hide.  The volume of ancient literature that would contain mention of this would be insurmountable.  If such a conspiracy to hide it actually happened (and again who knows why?) it would have resulted in schism within the early Church, and indeed those hiding the truth of his offspring would have eventually died out.  There is no logical reason to believe such nonsense, unless of course you just like conspiracy theories, and care nothing about Christianity in the first place.

It's time to take a closer look at those who promote such conspiracy theories.  No, I'm not talking about the good historian like Professor Karen King of Harvard who is just doing her job.  Nor am I talking about the fictional novelist Dan Brown who is just making a living as a writer.  I'm talking about those who advocate and promote these conspiracy theories as if they were fact.  Let's face it, there are a lot of people in the world today who want the Catholic Church (and all of Christianity really) to radically change its ways.  They want female ordination of priests and bishops.  They want a more feminine Church that redefines the roles of men and women, and likewise redefines the role of marriage as well.  Such conspiracy theories work to the advantage of those who would like to promote these things, and this, more than anything else, explains the hysteria that surrounds discoveries of incomplete texts on papyrus and suspicious inscriptions on ossuaries.  By themselves, these are just curiosities, that leave us with more questions than answers.  When put into a broader conspiracy theory however, they become powerful weapons to use against the credibility of the Catholic Church and historic Christianity.  We should keep in mind the motivations of those who would use them as such.

UPDATE (21 September 2012): Harvard University questions authenticity of "Jesus wife" papyrus - read more

UPDATE (27 September 2012): After further investigation, Vatican declared the "Jesus wife" papyrus a fraud - read more

------------------------------------------------------------------

Highly recommended by priests and catechists, "Catholicism for Protestants" is a Biblical explanation of the Roman Catholic faith as told by Shane Schaetzel -- an Evangelical convert to the Catholic Church through Anglicanism.  The book is approximately 100 print pages, and formatted in an easy-to-read Question & Answer catechism style.  It addresses many of the common questions Evangelical Protestants have about Catholicism. It is ideal for Protestants seeking more knowledge about the Catholic Church, and for Catholics seeking a quick refresher course on fundamental Catholic teaching. It's an excellent book for Catholics and Protestants alike!  Order Your Copy Today