(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) 

(Jn 6:60-69)

John 6:60 Many of his disciples, having heard, said, "This language is harsh; who can understand it?"

John 6:61 Jesus, knowing within himself that his disciples were murmuring about this very thing, said to them, "Does this shock you?

John 6:62 What if you saw the Son of Man ascending where he was before?

"This language (logos) is hard; who can understand it?" This is a judgement that the disciples pass on Jesus' speech and emphasise all its harshness, which makes it impossible for them not only to understand, but also any other possibility of dialogue with Jesus. Their speech is not a request for clarification, but a judgement without appeal, which ends the relationship with their Master. It is no longer possible to continue listening.

The Jewish religion is par excellence the religion of the word, which underlies the relationship between Israel and Yahweh. Listening had its founding precept in Deut 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one". The refusal to listen indicates a decisive break with the incarnate Logos, who precisely through the word made himself manifest to his people. What the disciples call hard and reject, in fact, is not only the "language" (logos) of Jesus, but also the presence of another Logos, whom John contemplates at the opening of his Gospel and of whom he testifies that "He came among his people, but his own did not receive him" (John 1:11).

"After having listened", aorist verbal tense ("akousantes"), we pass to the present indicative, which hints at the negative evolution of a part of Jesus' discipleship, which from the initial welcoming listening (aorist) passed to the refusal to listen (present indicative). In fact, the disciples are referred to as the "akousantes", i.e. "those who listened". It is precisely these "akousantes" who now question the continuity of their listening: "who can hear him?". The question, clearly rhetorical, implies a negative answer. Faced with the harsh manifestation of the Logos, which demands the overcoming of human reasoning and cognitive schemes, the initial welcoming willingness is no longer there.

Vv. 61-62 give an initial framing to the problem of the disciples, whose protest was neither clamorous nor open, but was meant to worm its way into their souls. Jesus in fact learns of the matter 'within himself'. An emphasis, the latter, that highlights Jesus' superior knowledge, from which his messianicity and even earlier his divinity shines through. What emerges is an image of Jesus as the ruler and not the victim of events. It is in fact he who takes the initiative and puts his disciples up against the wall: "Does this scandal you?". The question Jesus asks his disciples here is an "aut, aut" and will ultimately result in their defection. Jesus asks his disciples whether he, his person, his mission, his preaching and his work are a cause of scandal for them.

In v. 62 Jesus goes further in his offensive against the unbelief of his disciples: "What if you saw the Son of Man ascending where he was before?" A somewhat obscure phrase, a phrase that is certainly unexpected, but one that must be understood in the context in which it is placed. Jesus is confronted by disciples who are challenging him for the harshness of his discourse; they are disoriented, they do not want to abandon their own mental schemes to access a mystery that is only to be believed and not reasoned about, as it is out of human reach. Jesus, therefore, tells them that if they are scandalised by his discourse on bread, his body, how could they hold up when they are called to investigate other, higher mysteries, such as his divinity - signified in that "going up where he was before", by which is indicated his co-eternity with the Father, from where he came forth and descended from heaven, proposing himself as the Bread of Life for men. It becomes an impossible task to access difficult things if the simplest things scandalise them. 

A question that closely recalls the dialogue with Nicodemus, where to his resistance Jesus replies: "If I have spoken to you about things on earth and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you about things in heaven?" (John 3:12). In other words, Jesus, there as here, is speaking to men through a human symbolism ("things of the earth"), easily understood by them: water, wind, being born, reborn, in Nicodemus' account; living water in that of the Samaritan woman; bread, flesh and blood, eating and drinking here in ch. 6. Symbols to which Jesus links divine realities otherwise unreachable by men; realities that only need to be believed in order to overcome human limitation. But Jesus at the same time also offers his credentials attesting to his divinity, and therefore his credibility. In Nicodemus, he states that "no one has ever ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven" (Jn 3:13); in the account of the Samaritan woman he allows himself to be grasped as "the Messiah" (Jn 4:25) and "saviour of the world" (Jn 4:42); while here he suggests his divinity from eternity ("where he was before"). Only faith therefore makes it possible to reach the mystery that lives in Jesus, revealed in him and knowable only through his word believed and accepted, since the flesh is totally inadequate. 

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) 

(Pr 9:1-6)

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom has built her house,

he has carved his seven pillars.

Proverbs 9:2 He killed the animals, prepared the wine

and set the table.

Proverbs 9:3 He sent his handmaids to proclaim

On the highest points of the city:

Proverbs 9:4 "Let him who is inexperienced flock here!"

To the senseless she says:

Proverbs 9:5 "Come, eat my bread,

drink the wine that I have prepared.

Chapter 9 of the Book of Proverbs describes the house of wisdom. The Hebrew term for 'wisdom' is 'ḥoḵmāh', but here the plural form 'ḥoḵmôṯ' (wisdom) appears to indicate the fullness of wisdom, which rests on seven pillars.

The pillars are a symbol of stability, of security. The fact that these columns are seven indicates that the house of wisdom is unshakable, capable of guaranteeing absolute stability. Moreover, the columns do not refer to an ordinary house; they characterised the structure of temples and the palaces of kings. The house of wisdom is actually a temple, a solemn and regal dwelling. This image is intended to emphasise the preciousness of the gift of wisdom, which communicates to man a regal character, because it enables him to pass through even the most difficult situations with a superior spirit, without ever losing control of himself.

Think also of the seven sacraments of salvation, the seven virtues that are the foundation of the Christian life, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle James (Jas 3:17) describes Wisdom from above as: 1-pure; 2-pacific; 3-mild; 4- forgiving; 5-full of mercy and good fruits; 6-unbiased; 7-unhypocritical. Nothing is lacking in the perfection of the house of wisdom.

A rich and abundant banquet is imagined in the house of wisdom (v. 2). Wisdom did not build the house for herself, but to give men a place of refuge from the bewilderments of life, to those of course who are willing to accept her invitation. Without her, the human mind would go astray, would be overwhelmed by a flood of ideas, concepts, hypotheses, theories, none of which would be able to pacify the need for truth that everyone carries within. The image of the banquet is also particularly apt as a description of the joy, communion and satisfaction it brings to its guests.

The place chosen by Wisdom to make her voice resound is an open place (v. 3), a space in which her voice spreads widely. No one is excluded from the invitation; it is addressed to all. Everyone must be able to hear it. No one is to say: no invitation has come to me. Before Wisdom there can be no excuses. The task entrusted to "his handmaids" should remind us that we have come to know the Wisdom of God, that is, the Lord Jesus, and that we must share this Wisdom with others, inviting them to benefit from it.

In order to put oneself in the school of Wisdom, one fundamental characteristic is required: to feel the need to be taught (v. 4), not to have the illusion of being self-sufficient. Many fall into this trap, many trust in their own ability to get by in life. The conviction that one does not need to increase one's knowledge causes the decay of the spirit, as happens to an overconfident athlete who tends to take it easy in training, only to experience in the test of the competition that he has overestimated himself. On the contrary, the dynamism of growth towards a full life is given by the awareness of not having yet learnt everything, of still being inexperienced.

What wisdom offers its guests is bread and wine (v. 5), a simple food. This signifies that wisdom bestows the most precious riches through humble appearances, to such an extent that it will be necessary to overcome the poverty of appearances in order to attain the authentic substance bestowed by wisdom. Wisdom communicates to man a quality of life full of values, but through gifts that do not attract the attention of those who hunt for the extraordinary. One must have a penetrating gaze, to grasp the hidden preciousness of wisdom. It is often much easier to be gripped by the proposals of the world, by everything that is pleasing in appearance, but lacking in content.

Wisdom wanted to prepare a banquet by turning the terms of the world's proposals upside down, offering the most precious things behind a poor and simple mantle, which does not attract. That is why it will be necessary to put all the forces of one's will, one's perseverance and one's faith into motion, in order to come to taste that food that heals and communicates true life. This is God's way. If his gifts had an attractive outward appearance, there would be no merit in seeking them. The Lord wanted to set a test at the threshold of the house of wisdom, so that those who are used to stopping at appearances, those who judge things summarily, without deep investigation, cannot enter it.

The bread and wine are elements that Christ will take as constituent foods of his banquet, giving wisdom under the Eucharistic species, which is the real presence of the Body. Even the Eucharistic banquet, in its external figure, is apparently disappointing; a sober and essential rite. If God were manifested in all his glory, all humanity would fall on its knees before his majesty; but this act of adoration would not be free. Here then, human freedom can only be fully exercised if the wonders of God are presented to man in a humble and humble appearance.

For it is all too easy to side with the strongest when he clearly demonstrates that he is. It was all too easy to rally around Christ who multiplied the loaves and healed the sick, it was easy even to want to elect him king, since he solved man's secular problems so cheaply; but when he is arrested and crucified, there is no one left with him. Everyone takes cover, fleeing. This means that as long as the Lord clearly manifests His power, no one is really free to seek Him or love Him, because they are attracted by the seduction of power and glory. Even in the experience of the Church, kneeling before the Eucharist is a truly free and worthy act, because in it the majesty of Christ is perfectly hidden.

This is the reason why Wisdom invites us to a banquet where we receive the substantial food, the only one that guarantees life, but with an apparently disappointing menu: so that in the face of this invitation, men exercising their freedom have the merit to sit at the banquet of Wisdom without being attracted by the extraordinary.

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) 

(Jn 6:41-51)

John 6:41 Meanwhile the Jews murmured about him because he had said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."

John 6:42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph? Of him we know the father and the mother. How then can he say, I am come down from heaven?"

John 6:43 Jesus answered, "Do not murmur among yourselves.

John 6:44 No one can come to me, except the Father who sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And all shall be taught of God. Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

V. 41 ends with the object of contention between Jews and Jesus: "I am the bread that came down from heaven". At stake here is not the identity of Jesus as the expression "I am the bread" might suggest, but rather the origin of Jesus, who affirms his divine origin ("from heaven"); while the Jews seek his origin among men, betraying their inability to transcend the appearance of things: "Of him we know his father and mother. How then can he say: I am come down from heaven?". Man cannot arrive at the divinity of Jesus by investigating within human parameters, with logics that do not allow him to transcend the human dimension. Jesus' divinity, as well as his being the bread of eternal life, can only be reached through believing, which is never the conclusion of a fine human reasoning, but only a gift from the Father, who generates the believer. It will be the following pericope (vv. 44-47) that will illustrate the generative dynamic of the believer by the Father.

But first Jesus invites the Jews to lower the tone of their polemic: "Do not murmur among yourselves" (v. 43), to cease their revolt against the world of the divine that is about to manifest itself to them and is completely incomprehensible to them. Only through inner readiness to accept revelation can one gain access to the Mystery, which is otherwise unreachable, since the instrumentation man possesses is totally insufficient and inadequate.

Vv. 44-47 emphasise that believing does not depend on human effort or ability, but possesses a complex dynamic, and finds its origin in the Father: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. The determining action of the Father that draws the believer to Jesus is underlined by the sentence with which v. 44 opens: "No one can". In other words, man is not endowed with a power of his own that enables him to enter into the Mystery with which Jesus is imbued. The final resurrection, by which the believer is definitively united to the very life of God, therefore depends on the action of the Father, which is accomplished here and now, as if to say that it is the existential orientation that is fulfilled in my today that determines the final outcome of my salvation, which does not depend on man ("No one can"), but on the saving plan of the Father, who manifests himself and works in his Son.

It is now a question of understanding the meaning of that "draws", and it will be the task of v. 45 to specify its meaning, which opens with a scriptural reference, calling into question the authority of the prophets: "and all will be taught by God". This is almost certainly Is 54:13: "All your children shall be disciples of the Lord, great shall be the prosperity of your children". Jesus gives the prophecy of Isaiah a strong universalistic valence, which characterises the last times, in which God, according to expectation, will no longer speak through mediators, but everyone will be his direct interlocutor and disciple. Now God teaches and instructs his people directly in his Son: "Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me". The drawing of the Father to Jesus does not happen through miracles or portentous signs; it does not happen through spells that bewitch, but through his Word. It is that eternal Word of the Father that John sings in his Prologue and of which he contemplates the glory of the Father's only-begotten Son incarnate. And it is precisely the welcoming listening of this Word that draws the believer to Jesus. Everything therefore stems from the welcoming listening to the Word, which John significantly places at the beginning of his Gospel, as the principle of everything, from which everything descends and depends.

Beyond these theological aspects, v. 45 also gives room for a different interpretation, which however does not exclude the previous one. It is addressing Israel, defined as the one who has been instructed by God through the Torah, the Covenant and the Prophets; to the authentic Israel, which has known how to listen, as a faithful disciple of Yahweh, waiting for the redemption announced by the Scriptures, and which is defined here as the one who "has heard from the Father and has learned"; for this reason it has known how to "go to Jesus". But this praise of faithful Israel also contains within itself an implicit accusation against unbelieving Judaism. Jesus is in fact here addressing the Jews, who in vv. 41-42, with their murmuring and their considerations, have demonstrated their invincible unbelief. Now with vv. 44-47, he gives the reasons for their being so obstinately unbelieving before the Mystery that is being revealed in Christ; reasons that are at the same time an indictment against their inability to understand the Scriptures and to believe correctly in them. For if they had rightly understood the Scriptures, they would now come to him and would not so stubbornly oppose him, precisely because the Scriptures testify of him.

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)

(Ex 16:2-4.12-15)

Exodus 16:2 In the wilderness the whole community of the Israelites murmured against Moses and against Aaron.

Exodus 16:3 The Israelites said to them, "Had we died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we were sitting by the pot of meat, eating bread to our fill! Instead you have brought us out into this wilderness to starve all this multitude."

Exodus 16:4 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I am about to rain down bread from heaven for you: the people shall go out to gather a day's ration every day, that I may test them, to see whether they walk according to my law or not.

God's people on the march stop in the middle of the wilderness, for the specification between Elim and Sinai (Ex 16:1). And it is precisely when we find ourselves in the middle of the desert, far from the two opposite ends, when we see no way out, that faith begins to waver. We do not know what future awaits us, where we will end up and how we will get out. Easily, one's thoughts run back to past lives, which, even in slavery, offered something to look forward to.

The provisions they had brought from Egypt are beginning to run out, and the desert is not a source of food. They have left Egypt, the land of material abundance, but have not yet reached the land they thought of as the region where milk and honey flows. Difficulties are strong temptations for every man. Was it really worth abandoning the safe, the certain, to begin a journey of uncertainty and insecurity?

The temptation arises from the loss of faith. One no longer sees God. One no longer understands his will. One is no longer able to see behind history the wise hand of God who desires only one thing: that one has faith in Him, the only source of life and blessing for man. Once faith is lost, murmuring begins. Murmuring is a deadly poison. It is enough for one to start murmuring for a thousand others to become defiled and then the camp of the Israelites becomes a source of discouragement and further loss of faith. Murmuring is the renunciation of faith in God.

Dying to die, it was better to die in Egypt. There is death in the abundance of food and there is death in scarcity. The Lord could have chosen to let us die in Egypt rather than end our days in the desert. What future remains for those in the desert but a miserable, slow death by starvation? So the life that Satan offers us can also appear beautiful and fulfilling when one compares it with the desert in which the Lord places us to lead us to eternal life. Everything has been forgotten, everything forgotten, everything now removed by the Israelites. Thirty days in the desert were enough to forget all the great wonders performed by the Lord in the land of Egypt and at the Red Sea.

Which present is better, the one in which one dies of hunger or the other in which, although one must die, one dies in abundance? Better to die in abundance than in destitution. This is the choice of those who have lost their faith. He, on the other hand, who preserves faith, knows that the present is not one of death but of life, because it is governed by the Lord. Man, however, does not see God's government and thinks that everything is in his own hands. Seeing our hands full, when they are empty, can only be done by faith. This faith is absent in God's people today. It takes all of God's wisdom and patience to stabilise his people in faith. The whole of history is this untiring work of the Lord.

There is no direct relationship between God and his people: everything goes through Moses. Israel complains to Moses, God speaks to Moses. Without Moses nothing from heaven comes down to earth and nothing from earth goes up to heaven. Moses is a figure par excellence of Christ. No one can claim a direct relationship with God the Father, bypassing the Son. The Son sees the Father face to face, and we do not know the Father except through the Son and insofar as the Son makes him known to us. Without the word of Christ it is impossible for us to know the will of God, nor would we know how to begin our journey of salvation, and on what food we must feed in order to have eternal life.

Israel complains about the lack of meat and bread. The Lord will send a food from heaven that not only keeps us alive, but makes us grow into another life. It is a food that is not the work of our hands, but a gift from God. It comes from heaven and not from the earth. It cannot be stored in man-made warehouses, nor can it be kept for the next day. It is given every day and every day must be lived in prayerful expectation of this food.

Here is the first rule of the bread from heaven: everyone must trust God, must believe that tomorrow He will give bread again. The bread from heaven requires daily faith. I only gather today's bread because tomorrow the Lord will give it to me. If I gather today's bread also for tomorrow, it is a sign that I have already lost faith in my Lord. I do not believe that He will give it to me again tomorrow. Jesus also gave us this test of faith. We too in the Our Father ask for this day's bread. Today for today. Tomorrow for tomorrow. Every day for every day, in its everydayness. This is our great difficulty: living by faith in the everyday.

"That I may test him, to see if he walks in my law or not". The food that is freely given from heaven is not an easy way out or an easy solution to get to eternal life without difficulty. It is a test for us: not simply because we have to wait for it every day, but because we are not given to see beyond the appearances of bread. It is the gift of the Lord, but how can we see in this different bread, the food that is given for eternal life and even more the flesh of Christ that is given for the salvation of the world? In our relationship with God, faith is indispensable, and faith is given by hearing the Word as it comes from the mouth of His Son and by eating the Word who is the Son Himself, offered as a sacrifice in atonement for our sins. Just as God trusts and relies on Moses alone, so the Lord's people must place their faith in Christ alone. 

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)