Ps 17 (18)

This monumental ode, which the title attributes to David, is a Te Deum of the king of Israel, it is his hymn of thanksgiving to God because he has been delivered from all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. David acknowledges that God alone was his Deliverer, his Saviour.

David begins with a profession of love (v. 2). He shouts to the world his love for the Lord. The word he uses is 'rāḥam', meaning to love very tenderly, as in the case of a mother's love. The Lord is his strength. David is weak as a man. With God, who is his strength, he is strong. It is God's strength that makes him strong. This truth applies to every man. Every man is weak, and remains so unless God becomes his strength.

God for David is everything (v.3). The Lord for David is rock, fortress. He is his Deliverer. He is the rock in which he takes refuge. He is the shield that defends him from the enemy. The Lord is his mighty salvation and his bulwark. The Lord is simply his life, his protection, his defence. It is a true declaration of love and truth.

David's salvation is from the Lord (v. 4). It is not from his worthiness. The Lord is worthy of praise. God cannot but be praised. He does everything well. It is enough for David to call upon the Lord and he will be saved from his enemies. Always the Lord answers when David calls upon him. David's salvation is from his prayer, from his invocation.

Then David describes from what dangers the Lord delivered him. He was surrounded by billows of death, like a drowning man swept away by waves. He was overwhelmed by raging torrents. From these things no one can free himself. From these things only the Lord delivers and saves.

David's winning weapon is faith that is transformed into heartfelt prayer to be raised to the Lord, because only the Lord could help him, and it is to Him that David cries out in his distress. This is what David does: in his distress, he does not lose himself, he does not lose his faith, he remains whole. He turns his faith into prayer. He invokes the Lord. He cries out to Him. He asks Him for help and succour. God hears David's voice, hears it from his temple. His cry reaches him.

God becomes angry because He sees His elect in danger. The Lord's anger produces an upheaval of the whole earth. The earth trembles and shakes. The foundations of the mountains shake. It is as if a mighty earthquake turned the globe upside down. The spiritual fact is translated into such a profound upheaval of nature that one has the impression that creation itself is about to cease to exist. In this catastrophe that strikes terror, the righteous is rescued.

The Lord frees David because he loves him. Here is the secret of the answer to the prayer: the Lord loves David (v. 20). The Lord loves David because David loves the Lord. Prayer is a relationship of love between man and God. David invokes God's love. God's love responds and draws him to safety.

"Wholesome have I been with him, and I have guarded myself from guilt" (v. 24). David's conscience testifies for him. David prayed with an upright conscience, with a pure heart. This he says not only to God, but to every man. Everyone must know that the righteous is truly righteous. The world must know the integrity of God's children. We have a duty to confess it. It is on integrity that truly human relationships can be built. Without integrity, every relationship is tightened on falsehood and lies.

"The way of God is straight, the word of the Lord is tried by fire" (v. 31). What is the secret because God is with David? It is David's abiding in the Word of God. David has a certainty: the way indicated by the Word of God is straight. One only has to follow it. This certainty is lacking in the hearts of many today. Many do not believe in the purity of God's Word. Many think that it is now outdated. Modernity cannot stand under the Word of God.

"For who is God, if not the Lord? Or who is rock, if not our God?" Now David professes his faith in the Lord for all to know. Is there any other God but the Lord? God alone is the Lord. God alone is the rock of salvation. To seek another God is idolatry. This profession of faith must always be made aloud (remember the 'Creed'). Convinced people are needed. A faith hidden in the heart is dead. A seed placed in the ground springs up and reveals the nature of the tree. Faith that is in the heart must sprout up and reveal its nature of truth, holiness, righteousness, love and hope. A faith that does not reveal its nature is dead. It is a useless faith.

"He grants his king great victories; he shows himself faithful to his anointed, to David and his seed for ever" (v. 51). In this Psalm, David sees himself as the work of God's hands. That is why he blesses him, praises him, magnifies him. God's faithfulness and great favours for David do not end with David. God's faithfulness is for all his descendants. We know that David's descendants are Jesus Christ. With Jesus God is faithful for ever. With the other descendants, God will be faithful if they are faithful to Jesus Christ.

Here, then, the figure of David disappears to make way for that of the perfect king in whom the saving action that God offers the world is concentrated. In the light of this reinterpretation, the ode entered the Christian liturgy as a victory song of Christ, the 'son of David', over the forces of evil and as a hymn of the salvation he offered.

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon) 

(Mk 10:46-52)

Mark 10:46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was departing from Jericho with the disciples and a large crowd, Timothy's son Bartimaeus, who was blind, was sitting by the roadside begging.

Mark 10:47 When he heard that Jesus of Nazareth was there, he began to cry out and say, "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me!"

Mark 10:48 Many rebuked him to keep him quiet, but he cried out louder, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Mark 10:49 Then Jesus stopped and said, "Call him!" And they called the blind man, saying to him, "Take courage! Get up, he is calling you!"

Mark 10:50 And he threw off his cloak, and leaped up and came to Jesus.

V. 46 frames the scene of the encounter between Jesus and Timaeus, a contracted name that was supposed to be "Timothy", i.e. "the one who honours God". This is a Greek name given to a Jew, which tells how profound the Hellenisation of Palestine was.

The same verse opens with a geographical note: Jesus' party, with his disciples and the crowd, enters Jericho and immediately leaves. A strange way to behave, since Jericho, as the last station before the long ascent to Jerusalem, was generally a place to rest and refresh oneself before ascending to Jerusalem. A very crowded and noisy city if one thinks of the comings and goings of priests and Levites going up and down from Jerusalem for the Temple service or taking turns in the weekly service. A city where pilgrims were coming up or down from Jerusalem. A city, therefore, very busy, rich, sumptuous, well-to-do and hospitable, but Mark emphasises in the opening of his account how Jesus enters and immediately leaves it, thus giving Jesus' journey towards Jerusalem a strong acceleration, leaving behind a world that belongs neither to him nor to those who have decided to follow him. But it is precisely on this road that one finds a blind man, Timaeus, who "sat by the wayside".

The verb 'to sit' is placed in the imperfect tense, a tense that indicates the persistence of that sitting of the blind man, who despite being on the same road as Jesus, the one leading to Jerusalem, in fact did not follow him, because he 'sat'. But it is precisely on this road that the decisive encounter takes place.

V. 47 presents two titles of Jesus, the first of which is the one by which he was known to the people: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jesus known by his historical origins and geographical provenance. But in Israel, a long tradition had formed, stimulating expectations, hopes and fantasies around the mythical figure of the Davidic Messiah. It was a matter, however, of recognising him and adhering to him existentially, thus believing that the promise that God made to David through the prophet Nathan had been fulfilled in Jesus. And this is what the blind man of Jericho will do.

In fact, Timaeus, upon learning of Jesus on the road to Jerusalem, did not hesitate to invoke him as the Davidic Messiah: "he began to cry out and say" and, therefore, to openly give his testimony of faith in the messianism of Jesus: "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me". An act of faith in Jesus' messianism, against everything and everyone.

The blind man's testimony about Jesus, in the form of an invocation, is transformed into an encounter with Jesus, a salvific experience, which will radically change the life of this blind man, since Jesus, seeing his faith, calls him to himself. Here we are faced with a call to follow. Mark, in v. 49, repeats the verb "to call": "call him", "they called him", "he calls you". Significant is that reminder: "Courage! Get up, he is calling you". A pressing invitation to get up from his blind condition, a metaphor for the non-believer, to answer Jesus' call. A sort of prelude to what will happen in v. 50: "He threw off his cloak, leaped up and came to Jesus". The cloak, like clothing in general, in the language of the evangelists is a metaphor for the condition of one's life. This "throwing off his cloak" indicates, therefore, the abandonment of his former life, that which had made him blind, in order to access Jesus; and he does so by "leaping to his feet", almost a kind of resurrection, the beginning of a new life. Notice how he was not accompanied to Jesus, as one would expect for a blind man, but went to Jesus on his own, because he was enlightened by faith. An approach to him, therefore, dictated by his faith, certainly still incipient, since he sees in Jesus only the son of David, the fulfilment in him of a promise, a passage therefore from Judaism to Christianity, but the road to reach Jesus, as Messiah and Son of God, is still long, and it will be necessary to arrive beneath the cross to hear him proclaim: "Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mk 15:39).

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)

(Mk 10:35-45)

Mark 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him, saying, "Master, we want you to do to us whatever we ask of you.

Mark 10:36 And he said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?" They answered him:

Mark 10:37 "Grant us to sit in your glory one at your right hand and one at your left."

Mark 10:38 Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you ask. Can you drink the cup that I drink, or receive the baptism with which I am baptised?" They answered him, "We can."

Mark 10:39 And Jesus said, "The cup that I drink you will also drink, and the baptism that I receive you will also receive.

Mark 10:40 But to sit at my right hand or at my left is not for me to grant; it is for those for whom it has been prepared."

v. 35 opens by presenting the protagonists of this episode and their request, which is narratively juxtaposed with the announcement of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, thus creating a jarring contrast between the interests of Jesus, who is speaking in dramatic terms of his imminent end, and those of the two brothers, who are thinking, instead, of grabbing the first seats.

James and John, two eminent figures, ask: "Grant us to sit in your glory one at your right hand and one at your left". It is a request for an investiture and a power that they want to share with Jesus. That "sit in your glory" refers not so much to the resurrection, the meaning of which was essentially unknown to them. The glory they were thinking of was the establishment of the new Kingdom of Israel in historical terms by Jesus. A hope this they nurtured to the very end. The "sit" indicates the position of privilege over others. What is required here, in essence, is for Jesus to recognise the two of them as heirs of his power and, therefore, to be his successors. An official and direct acknowledgement by Jesus in front of everyone would have gotten any discussion of "who is the greatest" out of the way. Hence the indignation of the other ten apostles, who had the object of their desires taken away from under their noses: "On hearing this, the other ten became indignant with James and John".

Jesus' response is divided into two parts. It opens by emphasising their non-knowledge: "You do not know what you ask" (v. 38). The request the two brothers had made to Jesus concerned temporal power. A request that shows how they had not yet truly understood what it meant that Jesus is "the Christ", nor what "Son of God" meant and what it all entailed. Everything was reparametered to their capacity of understanding, which could not transcend the horizontal level of Jesus' mission and the figure of Jesus himself.

The answer, therefore, continues in its second part, bringing everything back to the dramatic reality that was about to take place and that becomes central to this section: "Can you drink the cup that I drink, or receive the baptism with which I am baptised?" Jesus, therefore, does not refuse their request, but sets as a "conditio sine qua non" to reach the glory to which they aspire, the way of the cross. The "drinking of the cup" and "being baptised with the baptism with which I shall be baptised", are two metaphorical expressions that allude to events to which Jesus must be subjected in order to attain that glory that he does not claim for himself, but which the Father gives him, inasmuch as he has fully accomplished his will.

The response of the two brothers is astounding, because once again it shows how they have not understood what Jesus is talking about; and almost as if it were a game they reply: "We can" (v. 38).

Here too Jesus' response is twofold. In the first part of the response (v. 39) they are told that they too will be associated with the fate of their Master. Mark brings back the two expressions of the cup and the baptism, referring first to Jesus and now to James and John, suggesting that the two of them [but with them all the Twelve and in communion with them all believers] will also be associated with the same destiny as Jesus, for "there is no greater servant than his lord".

The second part of the answer (v. 40) gives a glimpse of how the glory of Jesus does not depend on Jesus, but all is deferred to the Father. A glory that is destined "for those for whom it has been prepared". They are those who have chosen the way of the cross and have been associated with Jesus' death and, because of this, also with his resurrection. 

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)

(Mk 10:17-30)

Mark 10:17 As he was leaving to set out on his journey, a man ran up to him and, throwing himself down on his knees before him, asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?"

Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not defraud, and honour thy father and thy mother."

Mark 10:20 He then said to him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth."

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus stared at him, and loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: go, sell what you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me."

Mark 10:22 But he was grieved at these words, and went away afflicted, for he had many possessions.

"As he went out to set out on his journey." Mark reminds his readers that this is the journey that leads to Jerusalem. And it is precisely on this journey that we have the framework and the key to the story.

The evangelist wants to emphasise the importance of trusting in Jesus and trusting in him and not in one's own wealth and, therefore, in oneself. He describes the encounter of this character in search of the perfect way very well: he runs towards Jesus and kneels before him, thus expressing his desire to meet the Master (he runs towards him) and his trust in him (he throws himself on his knees before Jesus). Bear in mind that everything here takes place on the road to Jerusalem and from there to Golgotha. This is the perfect way, the road that leads to eternal life, incomprehensible to those who put their trust in themselves and their possessions: doing the will of the Father. Hence the need to strip oneself of oneself and follow Jesus, for he is the Way that leads to the Father, to eternal life, and on this Way is stamped the mark of the cross.

The question around which the whole story revolves is a question: "Good Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?". Jesus is referred to as a 'good Master', where the term 'Master' defines the relationship between Jesus and this fellow, who stands in an attitude of disciple and, therefore, well disposed to accept the teaching of Jesus, who here, in a certainly anomalous way in defining a master, is called 'good'. A master can be called wise, enlightened, learned, knowledgeable, all attributes that highlight his position as a master and define his quality. It does not make much sense for Jesus to be called 'good' and Jesus immediately notes this as inappropriate for him, since, as a good Jew, Jesus knows that this attribute is only to be referred to and publicly acknowledged by God. Jesus, therefore, refers the search for this rich man back to God himself. The key that opens to "eternal life" belongs to the Father, but Jesus can point the way to the commandments, in which the very will of God is reflected and are placed as the seal of the Covenant, which underlies the very identity of the people of Israel.

The question posed by the rich man is "what must I do to have eternal life?". The question is part of the rabbinic debate, which is constantly searching for a sophisticated way of perfection or some commandment that can somehow sum up the very large number of all the other commandments of the Torah, as many as 613, which marked and still mark the life of the pious Jew. The Jewish religion is conceived as a kind of religious practice, a mere execution of divine orders and commands. The Torah, in fact, was understood as an expression of the divine will, which as such was only to be performed and not discussed. Upon proper execution, God was bound to give his faithful the promised reward. It was, therefore, a sort of contractual relationship, which the pious Jew had entered into with God within the framework of the Covenant. Within this logic we understand the rich man's request "what must I do to get". We are, therefore, still in the sphere of a contractualist logic, that of doing in order to have, but at the same time it hints at the profound desire to be open to a new relationship with God, capable of overcoming the old schemes. And it is precisely this need for inner renewal and spiritual growth that directed this one to Jesus.

With v. 19, Jesus points out the way, open to every pious Jew and to all men of good will, since the commandments are nothing but a law that is inscribed in man's very nature and shows him the path to follow. The commandments that Jesus lists concern only the relationship with others, omitting, instead, the first part of the Decalogue concerning the relationship with God. This choice of field made by Jesus, however, does not exclude relations with God, but completes them and constitutes the "conditio sine qua non". One cannot, in fact, love God whom one cannot see if one does not love one's neighbour whom one can see. Love for God passes through love for one's neighbour.

In the list of commandments, Mark adds a "Mē aposterēsēs" (do not defraud), which in fact does not exist among the commandments, but which in fact summarises Ex 20:17: "You shall not covet your neighbour's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his slave, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything belonging to thy neighbour'. The verb "aposterēō" (to defraud), which Mark uses here instead of "not to covet", means not only to defraud, but also "to deprive, to strip, to take away, to defraud, not to give what is due". The meaning that Mark here wants to attribute to that original 'not to covet' is that of an underhand and deceitful taking away of a good that belongs to one's neighbour. The reason for this choice on Mark's part, i.e. to replace "not to covet" with "not to defraud", must be understood for the audience of readers to whom Mark addresses his gospel: the community of Rome, for whom "to covet" is a simple motion of the soul, while for the Jewish mentality and culture "to covet" takes on much more concrete aspects, that is, to engage in behaviour such as to be able to subtract from another, in a devious and deceitful manner, the "desired" good. A concept that for the Romans was better expressed as "defrauding".

V. 20 reports the response of the rich man, who testifies that he has observed such things since his youth. The reference here is probably to the "bar mitzvah" (son of the commandment), a ceremony that is celebrated at the age of 13 for the male. This is the moment when the young man, now on the threshold of adolescence, makes his official entry into the civil and religious community, assuming his first responsibilities, taking an active part in religious and social life. He can from this moment be counted in the 'Minian', the minimum number of ten people for public prayer in the synagogue to be communal.

Jesus' response is articulated in three moments that constitute a sort of gradual path towards spiritual perfection: a) the observation that the mere observance of the Torah, however perfect, does not adequately satisfy this person's need for spirituality: "One thing you lack". This is a clear sign that the Mosaic Law was not able to give that spiritual perfection capable of creating an adequate communion between the believer and God. b) The second moment creates the condition for accessing this perfection: freeing oneself from all material bonds, which bind the possessor to the earthly, preventing him from any spiritual elevation: "sell all you have and give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven". This is not a simple repudiation of earthly goods, but a "distribution" of them to those in need and, therefore, a sort of sharing, which becomes a communion of life, thus transforming this material and perishable wealth into a spiritual and eternal one. c) The third element, which constitutes Jesus' response, is following: "then come and follow me". The verb used here is "akolouthei", and expresses a following that places itself at the service of Jesus. This is a technical verb used by the evangelists to define the relationship between the disciple who has decided his life for Jesus and Jesus himself.

The discipleship, therefore, is a gradual path, which stems from the need for spiritual perfection, to give a deeper and truer meaning to one's life; hence the need to free oneself from the material constraints that can condition the path of spiritual growth; and finally the following of Jesus, as the culminating moment of this path of spirituality, which begins precisely with the spoliation of oneself.

V. 22 closes the story about the rich man seeking the path to perfection with a note of sadness that leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth: "when he was saddened by these words, he went away sorrowful", because, the evangelist comments, "he had many possessions". A sadness, therefore, that is linked to possessions, because it is precisely these that prevent him from accessing that perfection to which he so aspired. A sadness that indicates the frustration of a great desire for God. For discipleship to be effective, it requires one's heart to be completely free from the materiality of living, for it is not a path of power and personal affirmation, but of spirituality, which by transcending materiality evolves the disciple towards God and leads him to him through service to others.

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon) 

(Gen 2:18-24)

Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone: I want to make him a helper who is like unto him."

Genesis 2:19 Then the Lord God fashioned out of the ground all manner of wild beasts and all the birds of the air, and brought them to man, to see what he would call them: whatever man called each of the living creatures, that was to be his name.

Genesis 2:20 So the man imposed names on all the cattle, and on all the birds of the air, and on all the wild beasts, but the man found no helper that was like unto him.

Genesis 2:21 Then the Lord God brought down a stupor upon the man, and he fell asleep; and he took away one of his ribs, and put flesh in its place.

Man's life is marked by a sense of loneliness, which is not in keeping with his nature of being in the image of God. The creature does not feel fulfilled by his Creator. True communication is only possible between equals. God is well aware of this limitation of Adam, and immediately thinks of placing another being beside him, not only similar to the Creator, but also similar to his creature. Adam had to find and see his own likeness to God, not only in himself, in his inner dimension, but also outside himself, in relation to the creature. The idea of the creation of woman is to give man a help, something more, to facilitate the path to the Creator.

But before creating woman, God brings animals to Adam. They are an enrichment to man's life, both because they are an object of knowledge and because they seek his company. It is a God-given instinct that drives animals to seek out man, to be close to him and to be his crown, as if he were their master or, better, their lord and king. God wants to see how Adam calls the animals to rejoice with him, to celebrate with him for the gift he has given him. Like when a father wants to see how his son accepts his gift.

To give the name is to have lordship over the animal. God constitutes man lord of the animal kingdom, and respects his decisions as lord. In fact, he leaves the naming of animals unchanged. This is an important passage: God does not place man on an equal footing with animals. He places him on a higher pedestal. He places him as their lord. And as the 'god' of animals, man cannot be an arbitrary, despotic 'god', but a 'god' who must manifest the will of his Creator in the animal kingdom.To relate to animals, one must call them by name or sound. Here man becomes the creator of words. Animals that respond to speech do not respond with speech. They obey man's call automatically, by an instinct created by God. It is an obedience devoid of logical intelligence: it proceeds by predetermined patterns, incapable of placing itself on the same level as the one who calls.

How can Adam find help in his growth and spiritual journey in creatures who are not his equals? The Lord is about to give him a great gift, but he wants him to want it. The experience of calling with the word creates the desire to communicate with the word. No animal is like man. Between the nature of animals and the nature of man there is an abysmal difference. There is a real ontological leap. To find in the animal a helper who is capable of breaking the loneliness of being, means two things: that man has elevated the animal to a higher level, or that man has degraded himself and looks upon himself as an animal.

"Then the Lord God brought a torpor down upon man, and he fell asleep". The way one gives something to someone one loves is commensurate with the importance of the gift. One sometimes gives simply, without wrapping, but for a particular gift one seeks a different way of giving. What could be more beautiful and more joyful for a child to find, upon waking up, that very gift so longed for? But there is another meaning of man's sleep: he must not witness the work of God, this must remain a mystery to man. Woman is given by God to man and as a gift from God one must accept her. 

In the gift, one must always respect the will of the giver, and the giver gave the woman to be a help for man. Every man, who is united in marriage, must find in woman his own life and as such respect, love, honour her. By honouring the woman, one honours God who gave her.

Here, however, one must enter into a spirit of faith, and it is precisely faith that is lacking in our day. Man thinks of himself, he sees woman as an object, a thing. Man sees himself without mystery. Consequently he sees woman without any mystery in herself. It is the Christian's task to enter into the mystery and show its beauty.

Adam's bride was formed from one of the ribs that God took from man when he fell asleep. Similarly, the Bride of Christ was taken from the side of the Saviour when Jesus gave his life, from which flowed blood and water.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)

Ps 18 (19)

Psalms 18:1 To the choirmaster. Psalm. Of David.

Psalms 18:2 The heavens tell of the glory of God, and the work of his hands proclaims the firmament.

Psalms 18:3 Day unto day sheweth the message, and night unto night sheweth the news.

Psalms 18:4 It is not language, nor words, whose sound is not heard.

Psalms 18:5 Through all the earth their voice is spread, and to the ends of the world their word.

Psalms 18:6 There he set a curtain for the sun, which cometh forth as a bridegroom out of the bridal chamber, rejoicing as a valiant man that walketh by the way.

Psalms 18:7 He rises from one end of heaven, and his race reaches to the other end: nothing escapes his heat.

Psalms 18:8 The law of the LORD is perfect, it refreshes the soul; the testimony of the LORD is true, it makes the simple wise.

Psalms 18:9 The commands of the LORD are right, they make the heart rejoice; the commands of the LORD are clear, they give light to the eyes.

Psalms 18:10 The fear of the LORD is pure, it endures forever; the judgments of the LORD are all faithful and righteous,

Psalms 18:11 More precious than gold, than much fine gold, sweeter than honey, than a dripping honeycomb.

Psalms 18:12 Thy servant also is instructed in them; to him that observes them is great profit.

Psalms 18:13 Who discerneth inadvertence? Absolve me from the faults which I do not see.

Psalms 18:14 Also from pride save thy servant, that he may not have power over me: then shall I be blameless, I shall be pure from great sin.

Psalms 18:15 The words of my mouth be pleasing to thee, before thee the thoughts of my heart. Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

In the first part of the Psalm (vv. 2-7) there is a song to the Creator of the universe. In the second (vv. 8-15) there is a hymn to the Torah, i.e. the divine law, the word of the Lord. The two parts of the psalm deal with how man can gain knowledge of God; first, by deduction by observing the visible heavens, and then through the teaching of God's word. These are the material and spiritual spheres respectively. The unity between the two is made through the symbolism of the sun: without the physical light of the sun and the spiritual light of God's word, there would be no life on earth. God reveals himself to all by illuminating the universe with the radiance of the sun and enlightens the faithful with the blaze of his word contained in his revealed law. It is significant, in fact, that the law, in the second part of the psalm, is outlined with solar attributes: just as the sun gives physical light to the earth (vv. 6-7), so the law is the lamp that gives spiritual light to man (vv. 8-9).

Going into more detail, we see how the order, beauty and harmony of the universe narrate the glory of God. The firmament cries out that it comes from God. It proclaims itself to be the work of his hands. The existence of the heavens is a song to the glory of God. Whoever looks at the firmament cannot but confess that it is the work of the Lord's hands. The majesty of creation provides evidence of a creator God even more majestic than creation. He who from the beauty of creation does not see the infinite beauty of his creator is a fool.

It is a narrative of God's glory unbroken, without end (v. 3). The day that goes conveys the news that there is a creator to the day that comes, entrusts it to him so that he in turn may convey it. The night that goes also conveys news of it to the night that comes, so that it too may cry out this truth and deliver it in turn to the night that succeeds it. No day wants the other day to forget its Lord, and so no night wants the other night to stop telling the wonders of God. God's truth must remain stable forever.

Day and night convey the news silently (v. 4). No one hears them speak. It is enough for the night to rise and the starry sky shines in all its splendour and immediately the hymn of praise for its Creator and Lord begins. It is enough for the day to dawn and the contemplation of God's works becomes a song of praise and blessing for its Author. This truth should also apply to man. It is enough for a man to come into the light for a hymn of thanksgiving to his Author and God to be sung. There is no greater miracle than the birth of a new human life. Yet man is the only being who does not always convey this news.

In the sky God has pitched a tent for the sun (v. 6). The sun is compared to a bridegroom emerging from his thalamus. It is the image of the bridegroom who loves his bride and who is loved by his bride. The sun comes out to give joy, warmth, to the whole earth. It comes out to awaken it from its torpor of night. It comes out to bring it back to life. The sun is the material life of the earth. It is a symbol of God. God is the eternal light that gives life and warmth. The sun is a symbol of God, but above all it is a symbol of the Word of God. It is the Word of God that is the true light that illuminates every man.

Indeed, in the second part of the Psalm (vv. 8-15), the Torah, the 'law', is spoken of, which includes both the first five books of the Bible and the word of God in general. While the visible creation bears witness to God's power, God reveals himself personally to Israel in the Torah. This distinction is revealed in the text by the replacement of God, i.e. Elohim (vv. 1-7) with the 'Lord', i.e. Yahweh (vv. 8-15).

The first thing that is said is that the law of the Lord is perfect (v. 8), i.e. it contains no errors. For every man to be prepared to absorb the Word of God, it is right that he should be convinced of its perfection and truth. Is there anything sweeter than honey? Is there anything more precious than gold? (v. 11) Well, nothing compares to the preciousness and sweetness of the Word of God. Singing the beauty of the Word of God is evangelisation. Today we lack this singing. This is our greatest poverty. We no longer sing the beauty of the Word.

After contemplating the beauty of creation, which is a pale image of the beauty that is in the law of the Lord, the psalmist looks at his life for a moment. "The unseen, who discerns them? Absolve me from hidden sins" (v. 13). Is his heart truly all in the Word? Is his soul really all in the Law? He would like it to be so. But is it really so? Is there not an inadequacy between the Word and its observance?

How many inadvertences in life, how many hidden sins! How many laws not fully observed through ignorance, superficiality! The psalmist asks the Lord that even from these sins his servant be forgiven. This thought about the non-observance of the Law of the Lord because it is too great is sublime. It always makes us humble before the Lord. We also sin through inadvertence.

The worst pride is to feel perfect in the observance of the Law. Nothing is more dangerous than this pride. From this pride the psalmist wants to be saved. This pride must not have power over him. If he is saved from pride, then he will be "blameless, he will be pure from the great sin" (v.14), and the great sin is that of considering oneself perfect before God.

"May the words of my mouth be acceptable to you" (v. 15). The psalmist wants his words to be pleasing to the Lord. This humility should also be every believer's. It would be enough to ask oneself: Are my words acceptable to the Lord? It would be enough to answer this question with humility. 

This Psalm should be meditated upon. It is a wonderful song about the sun of God that is his Word.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon) 

(Mk 9:30-37)

Mark 9:30 When they had departed from there, they went through Galilee, but he did not want anyone to know.

Mark 9:31 For he instructed his disciples and said to them, "The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; but when he is killed, he will rise again after three days.

Mark 9:32 But they did not understand these words, and were afraid to ask him for an explanation.

Mark 9:33 Meanwhile they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?"

Mark 9:34 And they kept silent. For on the way they had been discussing among themselves who was the greatest.

Mark 9:35 Then he sat down and called the Twelve, and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, let him be last of all and servant of all."

Mark 9:36 And taking a little child, he placed him in the midst, and embracing him he said to them:

Mark 9:37 "Whoever welcomes one of these children in my name welcomes me; whoever welcomes me does not welcome me, but the one who sent me."

This section opens with a geographical note: "they went through Galilee". Jesus goes to Capernaum. From there he will depart, heading for Jerusalem, but the true and deep meaning of the journey he is making towards Jerusalem was to be obscured to the people for the time being. Only the resurrection will shed light on his passion and death, unveiling their meaning and revealing the true nature of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, thus avoiding misunderstandings about the events that will take place in Jerusalem. Hence that "he did not want anyone to know" (v. 30). What Jesus "did not want" was for the meaning of his journey to Jerusalem to be revealed now. And that this is so is hinted at by that "in fact" placed at the beginning of v. 31, which in some way explains the reason for such silence.

Jesus "instructed ... and said": "the Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men". The verb 'delivered' in Greek is expressed with a passive verb, which means that the action is referred back to God himself. The fate of Jesus is part of a salvific plan of God, to which Jesus conforms. At the same time, this 'delivery' depends on a free decision of Jesus, which is not opposed to the Father's plan, as he is its implementation and revelation. Therefore, Jesus does not undergo the passion and death, but delivers himself to it in fulfilment of the Father's salvific plan.

The fact that Jesus is handed over "into the hands of men" gives a universal significance to his dying and rising. All humanity, therefore, is involved in his passion, so that his handing himself over into the hands of men becomes a gift of love of himself for all humanity.

V. 32 concludes this announcement with the unfailing note on the inability of the Twelve to understand: "But they did not understand these words and were afraid to ask him for an explanation". The verb in the imperfect indicative, durative tense, indicates the persistence of this incomprehension. But at the same time they do not want to go deeper into the matter; they are afraid to ask for explanations. It is as if there is something in them that keeps them locked in their world of many human thoughts and few thoughts of God.

Jesus' small party with the Twelve arrived at Capernaum, where Jesus had established his dwelling. "And when he was in the house he asked them". The term "house", preceded here by the determinative article ("en tē" = in the), does not indicate just any house, but in the language of the evangelists is a metaphor for a particular house: the church. What follows, therefore, has to do with the believing community and is a reflection of an ecclesiological nature.

Jesus asks his own what they were discussing "along the way". The road spoken of here is the one that led from Caesarea Philippi through Galilee to Capernaum. But it is still that same road on which Jesus announced his death. Well, on this road that is leading Jesus towards the gift of himself for men, the disciples had argued about who was the greatest among them.

Jesus' answer: "If anyone wants to be first, let him be last of all and servant of all". In other words, the first places are for others and not for oneself, and those who occupy them must place themselves in the right attitude of service for the benefit of the entire believing community, since those who occupy authoritative positions are called to make believers grow and not dominate them. This is the true meaning of authority: dedicating oneself to the good of others and to making them grow spiritually, confirming them in their journey towards God. An authority that is service for the good of the other. Jesus completely overturns the way of reasoning of men, where the greatness of the flesh wants the first to be served by all, while the greatness of Jesus wants the first to be the servant of all and the last of all. It is a true reversal of reality. This is how one must live in his kingdom.

Jesus then places a child in their midst and then embraces him. Placing him 'in the midst' means bringing him to their attention, but at the same time that child must become the yardstick against which they measure their way of reasoning. With regard to embracing him, this expresses not only Jesus' predilection for this category of people, but also that he identifies with them and becomes one with them, to the point that 'Whoever welcomes one of these children in my name welcomes me; whoever welcomes me does not welcome me, but the one who sent me'. Welcoming the child means making his way of being his own, made up of simplicity, devoid of a two-faced mentality and outside the palace entanglements, but in his purity of spirit he makes himself available to all, because he needs everyone and precisely because of this fragility he was among the last in the social scale of that time. Welcoming this child therefore means welcoming the line of thought and behaviour of Jesus himself, which reflects that of the Father.  

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)

(Mk 8:27-35)

Mark 8:27 Then Jesus departed with his disciples to the villages around Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he questioned his disciples, saying, "Who do people say that I am?"

Mark 8:28 And they answered him, "John the Baptist, and others Elijah, and others one of the prophets."

Mark 8:29 But he replied, "And who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."

Mark 8:30 And he sternly commanded them not to speak of him to anyone.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly, and be reproved by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and then be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 8:32 Jesus made this discourse openly. Then Peter took him aside, and began to reprove him.

Mark 8:33 But he turned around, and looking at the disciples, rebuked Peter, and said to him, "Far be it from me, Satan! For you do not think according to God, but according to men".

V. 27 creates the geographical context within which the account of the discovery of Jesus' identity is placed. It is on the road to Caesarea Philippi that Jesus prompts his disciples to question who he is. The understanding of who Jesus is, therefore, is here depicted by the 'road' where a journey of deepening and knowledge is taking place. That is, the beginning of a journey of knowledge of Jesus' true identity and nature.

The method Jesus adopts to stimulate his disciples to respond closely recalls that of maieutics, in which the teacher in dialogue with his disciples, through appropriate questions stimulates them to question themselves and find the answer. Jesus here first prompts his disciples to make up their own minds, summarising what they had heard about him from the people. But then Jesus' question becomes more pressing and directly questions his own: what did they think of him? The answer is simple, almost lapidary: 'You are the Christ'.

After this acknowledgement, a new phase opens in the relationship between Jesus and his disciples, that of a close teaching about his destiny of death and resurrection. Two realities that arouse bewilderment and incomprehension. Hence that "he began to teach" (v. 31), which suggests that from here a new path of catechesis is embarked upon, which will have as its central focus the theme of passion-death-resurrection. One is still on the road to Caesarea Philippi, a metaphor for a path of teaching and discovery.

If, therefore, Peter discovers the identity of Jesus as the Christ, that is, the Anointed One of God, consecrated and sent by the Father to fulfil a salvific mission, Jesus with the announcement of his passion reveals the nature of his messianism, founded on suffering and death, redeemed by his resurrection. This was shocking for Judaism, which dreamed of a revolutionary and victorious Messiah, so that Peter performs a counter-teaching towards Jesus: "Then Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him".

Here Peter assumes the role of teacher and guide towards Jesus, who, according to his logic, seems to be completely lost or, at least, unaware of his role as Messiah. The verb that has been softly translated here as 'took him' actually means to draw towards him, to lead with him, to take hold of him. So Peter's attitude is quite determined, not without a hint of violence or at least aggression towards Jesus for this exit, which destroys his dreams and those of others. A determination that is accentuated by that "he began to rebuke him" which is contrasted with Jesus' "he began to teach". It is not, therefore, a question of a momentary outburst of anger, but of a decisive dissent on his part against Jesus. The verb 'epitiman', in fact, does not only mean to rebuke, but also to blame. There is, therefore, between Jesus and Peter a clear clash of views; a clear rejection of the messianism that Jesus envisaged.

Jesus' response is quite harsh and bordering on a break with his group of Twelve. V. 33 opens in an unusual way: "But he turned away". "He" is Jesus, who is here referred to only by the pronoun, to indicate Jesus' estrangement from the Twelve. If, for the ancients, the name expressed the very essence of the person, the obscuring of his name meant somehow erasing that person, who had become a stranger. Jesus' turning away, then, should not be read merely as a turning towards someone, in this case the other disciples. The verb "epistrapheìs" (to turn around), while undoubtedly meaning to turn towards someone, has also taken on in New Testament language the sense of retracing one's steps, of repenting. Jesus, therefore, on the road to Caesarea Philippi, stops his journey and turns back "looking" at his disciples, almost as if to retrace his steps, refusing to go any further with them, thus involving the Twelve in the harsh rebuke addressed to Peter: "Far be it from me, Satan! For you do not think according to God, but according to men".

The rebuke opens with a scathing "Ipage opísō mou" (get behind me), which in the language of the evangelists indicates following. But that 'ipage' says much more than just 'go': it also means 'submit to someone; put yourself in someone's power'. Jesus, therefore, orders Peter, and with him his own, to fall in line and submit to his teaching. But if we think that Peter is here apostrophised by Jesus as 'Satan', this is somewhat reminiscent of the orders Jesus gave to demons during exorcisms. A kind of exorcism, then, that Jesus performs against Peter, his satan, whose Hebrew root "śtn" means to oppose, to accuse. What this means is explained in the second part of the call to Peter: "because you do not think according to God, but according to men". The reason, then, is based on the God-man opposition, on God's plans that do not match those of men. Therefore, following Jesus means moving from the perspective of men to that of God. A path that is not easy, peaceful and obvious, since it must pass through the Cross.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon) 

(Mk 7:31-37)

Mark 7:31 When he had returned from the region of Tyre, he passed through Sidon, heading toward the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the territory of Decapolis.

Mark 7:32 And they brought to him a deaf and dumb man, begging him to lay his hand upon him.

Mark 7:33 And bringing him aside away from the crowd, he put his fingers in his ears, and with his saliva touched his tongue;

Mark 7:34 Then looking up to heaven, he gave a sigh and said, "Effatá," that is, "Open up!"

Mark 7:35 And immediately his ears were opened, and the knot of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke correctly.

Mark 7:36 And he commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he commended it, the more they spoke of it

Mark 7:37 and, filled with astonishment, they said, "He has done all things well; he makes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak!"

V. 31 opens with a geographical note that creates the context within which this tale of healing is placed, which becomes, precisely because of this context, emblematic. The environment in which we move is the pagan one, in this case that of the Decapolis, so called because it consisted of a sort of confederation of ten cities of Greco-Roman culture and customs. 

The healing of the deaf-mute prefigures the conversion of the pagan world to the gospel. The Gentiles were deprived of God's revelation and therefore 'deaf' to his word. But through the preaching of the missionaries they would soon open their ears to hear the word of salvation and loosen their tongues to proclaim the praises of the Lord with their mouths.

The miracle, in Mark's perspective, is a 'sēmeion', a sign that conveys a theological truth; in this case it is an action that preludes the conversion of the Gentiles. The pagan world will finally open up to the message of salvation and worship the true God with a tongue loosed from sin.

But one could make a decidedly different interpretation. Mark contrasts the incomprehension of the disciples with the readiness for faith on the part of the Gentiles. Since Jesus is on a journey with the disciples (v. 31), the deafness may ultimately symbolise the dullness of the disciples. Yet, the two lines of interpretation, i.e. the missionary openness of the gospel and the disciples' incomprehension, are not mutually exclusive, indeed they complement each other. In fact, the disciples, once they had become aware of the Paschal faith of the crucified Messiah, would continue Jesus' mission, spreading the gospel among all nations.

The description of the miracle reflects the thaumaturgical practice of the Hellenistic milieu. What is interesting is that Jesus takes the deaf-mute aside away from the crowd. He does not want curious onlookers. The miracle for Jesus is an act of faith, never curiosity. The miracle is believed by seeing the miracle-worker, not by witnessing the act of its accomplishment. This truth is experienced by Jesus in the act of his resurrection. No one saw Jesus Christ in the act of his resurrection, that is, as he rose from the dead. The resurrection is believed because one has seen the risen Jesus. The resurrection is the foundation of the miracle of the resurrection. Jesus distances himself from all forms of spectacle, especially in our day and age and especially in certain evangelical circles, where excessive publicity is given to (alleged) miracles, performing them in stadiums, or in places packed with many people: the "Americanate".

The gestuality that follows, that putting one's fingers in one's ears and touching one's tongue with fingers soaked in Jesus' saliva, seems to want to hide the supernatural in the natural. It is as if Jesus wanted to hide in the natural things because of the extraordinary power at work in Him. Jesus does not expose the mystery to trivialisation.

V. 34 describes a kind of outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Father, who in that 'Effatha' produces what He says, opening up the deaf and dumb person's ability to hear and speak to God. Jesus' lifting up his eyes to heaven somehow suggests this, as if to create a sort of channel of communication and communion between God and him, through which, in that sigh, the divine healing and liberating power comes out, which works in Jesus and is attested by v. 35, which describes in that "immediately" the effects of the deaf-mute's salvific experience, so that "his ears were opened and the knot of his tongue was loosened and he spoke correctly".

Jesus commands that nothing be said to anyone about what happened to the deaf-mute. Silence is demanded by the mission that Jesus came to exercise on our earth. Jesus is not to be sought after as the healer of bodies. He is the healer of souls. Souls are only healed by the gift of grace and truth. Having healed the soul, the body too will receive the highest benefit. In the same way that when the soul is in death, in suffering, in grave illness, the body suffers great harm.

V. 37 comments on and celebrates the salvation accomplished in the Jesus event, which regenerates even the pagan world to God, making it capable of accepting the Word and celebrating the praises of God. "He has made all things good": it closely recalls Genesis, where God, at the end of creation, notes that all the things he had made were good, hinting at how in this regeneration of man a new creation has taken place.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon) 

Ps 14 (15)

Psalms 14:1 Psalm. Of David. Lord, who shall dwell in your tent? Who shall dwell in thy holy mountain?

Psalms 14:2 He who walks blamelessly, acts justly, and speaks faithfully,

Psalms 14:3 He shall not speak slander with his tongue, nor harm his neighbour, nor cast insult upon his neighbour.

Psalms 14:4 In his eyes the wicked is despicable, but he honours those who fear the LORD. Even if he swears to his own detriment, he does not change;

Psalms 14:5 He lends money without usury, and does not accept gifts against the innocent. He who acts in this way will stand firm forever.

The psalm is from David. Through him the Holy Spirit expressed these words. This psalm lists eleven actions that make a man righteous.

From a cultic point of view, it is a liturgical psalm, a true "penitential act" because the pilgrim to enter the temple had to have 1 a purified soul. It is also a gesture performed at the beginning of the Mass ("I confess to Almighty God...") that precedes the actual celebration of the rite.

To enter the temple, the Torah required an outward purity, which was linked to the observance of certain practices. The psalmist goes further: God demands inner purity. God is interested in the purity of man's heart. David manifests that law written in hearts that will be brought to fulfilment by Jesus.

V. 1 expresses walking towards God, reaching the tent of the Lord. Here we pause. The pilgrim goes to the temple, but in the end he also dwells there - not in the sense of dwelling in the temple, but in the sense that he has met the Lord and has fellowship with Him. This is what we experience in the Eucharist.

In a broader sense - 'Who shall dwell in your tent? Who will dwell in your holy mountain?" - are questions that concern man's future. Man does not only live of the present or the historical future. He also lives of an eternal future, after his death. This future can be lived on the mountain of life that is of the Lord, or in the valley of perdition and death without the Lord.

Who will dwell with the Lord for eternity? Who will dwell in his house forever? This question must be answered. The psalm gives the answer very clearly.

"He who walks blamelessly, acts righteously, and speaks faithfully" (v. 2). This is the one who will ascend and dwell in the eternal dwellings of God. In order to live eternally with God, very specific laws must be observed: to walk blamelessly, to practise righteousness, and to speak loyally. The first requirement ("He who walks blamelessly") conditions all the others. The Hebrew word 'tāmîm' means 'righteously'. He walks blamelessly (righteously) and practices righteousness who keeps the word of God, lives in the observance of the commandments. He who is righteous speaks righteously, for only the righteous has God who is truth in his heart. If man puts God in his heart, he will always speak faithfully. If, however, God is not in the heart, or one even thinks that he does not exist, what truth can he utter with his mouth if he is absent from the heart?

Here again is what one must do to ascend and dwell on the mountain of the Lord: One must always have a pure, holy tongue. One must never spread slander, falsehood, defamation with it. One must not do one's neighbour any harm. One must not hurl insults at one's neighbour. To ascend and dwell in the holy mountain of the Lord, one must observe the law of the Lord in all our relations with man.

He who wants to ascend the mountain of the Lord must not have any connivance with the wicked, while he must associate with those who fear the Lord. Another necessary thing that must be done: he must observe the oaths. The righteous, for he shall dwell in the kingdom of light, his shall be a path of light. How distant the conception of many Christians today is from this of the psalmist. It is as if we have destroyed in a few years a heritage of truth built up over millennia.

"Lend money without usury, and do not accept gifts against the innocent. He who acts in this way shall stand firm forever" (v. 5).  Usury is a sin severely condemned by the Church, which has always been against usurers, so much so that in the Middle Ages this type of loan was only practised by Jews. The verse seems to be written today. For usurers there is no place on the holy mountain of the Lord. They have fed, like thirsty vampires, on the blood of their fellow men, and for them there can be no place with God, because in their hearts there has been no place for the needy.

Neither will those who allow themselves to be corrupted by gifts and presents against the innocent ascend the holy mountain of God. This verse also seems to be written today. The problem of corruption was also topical in the Bible. The righteous, on the other hand, embraces the cause of the innocent without monetary incentives.

If the Christian had the courage to proclaim these old truths, the world would breathe a different light. Unfortunately, the Christian preaches salvation at a low price, indeed without any price; even at the price of sin, and the world is falling into chaos for lack of truth and morality. Without truth there can be no morality. Without morality the world plunges into the darkness of evil, and that is what is happening in our day. It is urgent to react with firmness and power of the Spirit - on pain of failure of the Church's mission.

Only with this total fidelity and integrity can one enjoy God's presence, participate in his worship (ascend his holy mountain), and intimacy with him (dwell in his tent).

The psalm, with all its very concrete demands, emphasises that liturgy and life, prayer and existence must never be separated. A Christian who limits himself only to going to Mass on Sunday is not a good Christian, because the practice of worship cannot be separated from works. There would be a huge gap between his prayer (liturgy) and his life (existence).

The psalm induces us not to have a magical vision of liturgy and prayer; the psalmist wants to inculcate the concept that liturgy-prayer without consistency of life is an empty thing. The acts indicated in these verses are not to be performed upon entering the temple; rather, they are behaviours that must characterise the believer's life. Moreover, ours cannot be an intimist faith ('me and my God'): our relationship with God is valid precisely insofar as there are others. If one does not live in a community dimension, one cannot even love the Lord. The Christian's faith must not simply be intimistic, but communitarian.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)