A Little AHA, and a Long Review of a Roman Catholic Response on John 6

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is a special Friday edition of the program today because, well, we're all messed up this week. So we didn't want to make you have to wait till next week, and especially after how heavy the last program was, we decided to do some other things.

Though the subject, I'm going to have to figure out how to do a light Dividing Line again. We've done some fun stuff in the past. I'm just not really good at fun, I guess, being Scottish or something.

But I do have a video that I want to go through today. But before I get to the video, I noted on Facebook, again, these things, stuff that comes up within 20 minutes or so of The Dividing Line, I don't know, ends up leading it.

But I noticed an article by Matthew Willard Lankford. I noticed it because one of my friends, Jason Wallace, was commenting on it. And so that brings it into your feed and stuff like that. And unfortunately, he quoted from a couple of things I said.

Was it the last program? Yeah, it was when I was talking about the premiere of Unpopular. And it conflated two things, and then it completely removed it from its context, what I said. And then people are talking about, yeah, I used to listen to him, but I'm just not going to listen to him anymore, because he's just so mean to Christians, all the rest of the stuff.

And so, you know, it's frustrating, because these folks, I was referring to AHA, have just, I'm sorry, they've just completely lost touch with reality. What I was referring to was their showing up at the premiere of Unpopular outside.

These are the same people that have shown up at least three weeks, I think maybe four, outside Emilio Ramos' church in the Dallas area. And it just seems that a lot of people just can't hear that for these people, as I said in one of my comments, the cause has become all.

The balance is lost. And it wasn't that they, you know, how could they anymore, had contacted Emilio and said, you know, we want to, people are now saying, well, they were only there to encourage people to rally outside the state capitol for some ballot initiative or initiative in the house or something.

I don't know. I don't know Texas state law and stuff that's going on in Texas. I don't live in Texas. But now it's being said, well, that's the only reason they're there. That's not the only reason they're there.

Come on, let's just be honest. Let's just be honest. If you've shown up outside an evangelical church that does street ministry, is as evangelical as Emilio and Trish Ramos, with your signs in the church repent movement, and then you show up at their event where they're premiering a film they've made, please don't tell them.

We were just there to try to encourage Christians to show up at the capitol. Give me a break. Come on, seriously. Let's be honest. Same thing at G3. Why were they there? It's part of the church repent thing.

It's saying you're focused on the wrong stuff. The only thing is our cause. There could be no balance in the church anymore. You can't teach the gospel. You can't talk about church history. You can't deal with other worldview issues.

This is the one thing. If you don't agree with us, we will stay outside your church with signs and we'll protest you. That's the reality. And if you can't see it, wow, that's self-deception. That's all there is to it.

Yes. Whenever you pull that microphone up, I know that this is

As you know.

You should have a little light on it that once you raise it up above a certain point, a little red light goes on in here. Warning, warning, Rich wants to talk.

As you know, I was unable to resist the urge

Yes, I know.

To just walk by them.

And that shocks me because

Oh, I know.

You know, did you say to one of them, go for it, buddy?

No, no.

No, you didn't do that?

Well beyond that.

There has been some maturing over the years.

Some.

Yeah, good.

Just a little bit. Not much. But it struck me as I'm walking by there, the gentleman the first time is trying to step more and more in my path. And the sidewalk was rather narrow.

It's not wide, no.

And so he's, and I said, listen, I've talked with you guys before. I've gone 10 hands around with you on Facebook and social media. I know what you believe and I know why I'm here. And I'm trying to get to the event.

So can you just let me pass? And he says, well, if you've talked with us before, then you shouldn't be afraid to talk to me now. And I'm like, I'm not afraid to talk to you now. I have somewhere I need to be going.

And again, he just keeps pressing this like we're the most innocent, lovable fuzz balls. And why wouldn't you want to talk to me? And I said, I finally looked at him and I said, okay, let's see what happens when I use one word.

Incrementalism. And the guy lights up. Now we're going to have an argument. And that's all it.

Takes.

You use the trigger word.

Yes.

I mean, haven't we learned about triggering now? You can't trigger anyone. You triggered somebody. There you go. Yeah. Well, anyway, I saw this article and it never mentioned anything about what I was actually talking about.

Didn't mention the context, didn't mention the imbalance, nothing like that. And then you've got people, yeah, I used to listen to him, but I'm not going to. He's just so mean to people. It's like, okay.

All right. There you go. It's frustrating. It's frustrating. Well, anyway, speaking of frustrating, when I was thinking about today, I was thinking about opening the phone and stuff. And then I remembered that I think before we went to G3 and Dallas and Memphis and all the stuff that's come out from all of that, we did a one hour and 51 minute program called John Six for Roman Catholics.

An hour and 51 minutes. So let's say there's a little introduction, little stuff at the end. Okay. An hour and 45 minutes. And if you recall, what we did is we just walked through John chapter six and we did so biblically and I invited people on the other side.

Can you do the same thing and come up with the modern dogmatic teaching of Rome that requires the importation of Aristotelian categories of accidents and presence and accident substance and the real presence being a physical presence rather than a spiritual presence and all the stuff that's necessary for the Eucharist to be a perpetuatory sacrifice.

And there had been a few people on Twitter that I had been talking with about this. One I finally had to block this week. By the way, there's this real weird idea amongst millennials that for some reason you have a right to be able to put stuff on my desktop that's mocking, condescending, or just simply silly and I have to leave it there.

In other words, people actually think that there's something morally wrong with blocking someone on Twitter. Or there's other people think you have to make me your friend on Facebook. You just have to make me your friend on Facebook.

If you don't, then you're not showing Christ to me. Wow, I've been looking for that in my exegesis of the New Testament. I haven't been able to find it yet. Anyway, just weird attitudes out there. Well, there was this, was it how to be Christian?

Is that what it was on Twitter? How to be Christian? They're the ones that did the video about you. They did a video about me. And I actually mentioned them when they did the first video about me being a false teacher and all the rest of this stuff.

And I would have reviewed it on the dividing line, but it was so scattered and so slow in getting to its point that it's next to impossible to review. I mean, I think the thing was like 20 minutes long.

There was only about three minutes of substance in it. And so it'd take a tremendous amount of work to grab a part here, grab a part here, put it all together. I just decided, you know what? Given, you know, here's the situation.

The guy looked like, to be honest with you, the how to be Christian, looked like he was born after my first book on Roman Catholicism even came out. And the attitude that I'm running into from people today is, oh, so you've written books on this subject?

I don't want to read books. I want you to rewrite it for me in Twitter. And I just can't help but think again of that really good statement that Doug Wilson made at that event at that university, where they're trying to shout him down and stuff.

And he's trying to talk to this radical woman. And basically, she just will only allow him to say one sentence at a time. And finally, he makes a statement. He says, you know, I frequently have thoughts that require more than one sentence to express them.

Which was a true statement, but also a really nice, subtle, wham, at the same time. And that's how I feel when people go after me on Twitter about stuff that, well, I want to debate you on the subject of, wow, where did I put my justification book?

Oh, there it is. Oh, that's right. I want you to explain to me James chapter two. Now, by the way, we're still going to do, hopefully pretty quickly here, James chapter two for Roman Catholics. Just do a whole program just on James chapter two, because I think that would be useful.

But when people want to say, uh, I want you to explain James chapter to me on Twitter. Okay. Wrote a book. It's not, it's not, it's not the biggest book in the world, but it is over 300 pages long. It's almost 400 pages long.

Um, and, and a lot of folks have really found it to be very helpful. And it's like, um, I don't want to read a book. I want you to, to do this on Twitter. Uh, or this guy, what he was doing was he was like, he completely lost me early on when he asked me, well, do you believe that like first or second Peter is inspired scripture or something like that?

I was, I forget what it was, but it was, it was just a question that you would never ask someone if you had read anything they had said, if you know anything about what their, their, their commitments are, their, their position as an elder in the church, you just never asked this question.

You know, it's like, well, do you believe, asking me, do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Is that really a meaningful question? No, it's not. It is not a meaningful question at all. And so he sort of lost me at that point, but here's the guy who wants to come after me.

And I guess the whole substance of one of these videos he did was, well, he's misrepresenting Roman Catholicism. Rather than going to my published works and debates, some of which were done before the guy was born, probably.

He takes a comment on Facebook or a statement on a, on a program, not dealing with the published works or anything like that. And then twist it from there. I'm sorry. That's the internet is full of that kind of stuff.

It's just full of that kind of stuff. And it's just not, it's just not worth the time to invest in it. I mean, you would spend your entire life responding to everything that was posted about you, well, about me anyways, on YouTube.

It's just, it's just amazing, the stuff that's out there. And there's stuff that's been out there for years I've never even seen because no one ever directed me to it. And I don't go looking for it. I don't sit there in the morning and go, all right, you know, set up some type of search routine.

Well, what's been said about me since last night? I don't, I don't do that. Life would really become a bummer if I did stuff like that. So, oh, there's someone in, there's someone in channel waiting for me to accept their MySpace friend request.

Wow. You know, I heard MySpace actually still exists. I've heard it's, it's sort of like Yahoo, you know, it's just, it's an AOL there. You know, my dad still uses AOL, which is really, I think, you know, it's sort of like, I don't know, keeping your Model T around, you know, it's just sort of nostalgia type thing.

So anyhow, back to the story. So we did this John chapter six thing. And I invited the other side. Let's see what you can do. Let's see if you can walk through the text and, you know, come, you know, follow the argument and do the same type of thing.

And this is all I saw. I'd say about a week later. Oh, did you, you probably didn't see that. Good. I've activated the flash thing on my phone to where when there's a message or something, the light flashes for me now, which is really, you know, they've had, they've, one of the recent updates, I was sitting at waiting to get picked up at the airport.

And I saw a thing about cool hacks on the iPhone or something like that. And they've made it one of the update. I like that. Because sometimes I've silenced it, put it down. But, you know, anyways, I just didn't know if I think I've got far enough out of the screen there that you won't have flashing lights.

And it won't look like the most recent Star Trek movies with all sorts of the, you know, how the lights at the cameras, what they call that Corona effects or, or something like that. The guy that did the first Star Trek reboot was real big into that.

Anyway, we are wandering about here, aren't we? So about, I'd say a week after I did it. So I was after we had left, Bob Sullivan, Bob Sullivan posted a 14 minute video, a Catholic response, Dr. James White on John six.

So I'm like, okay, so I grabbed it. And I downloaded it, but I was just a little bit, I've been too busy. And so I have it. I haven't seen it. So what we're going to do today is we're going to, we're just going to play it.

And I'm going to do a live response to a Catholic's response to my presentation on John six. Now, I could sit here and predict what's going to happen. I can sit here and predict what any meaningful Roman Catholic has to say.

Lens flares. Thank you. Thank you very much. JJ Abrams does lens flares. Yes. That's what, oh, and there's someone in channel also at the same. It's almost like having a studio audience, except they're really slow because there's the delay.

So I got one in Twitter and I got one in channel all at the same time. And well, we do have a studio audience today. I wasn't saying you were slow because you're military, right? You could probably kill me with just, you know, one type of thing like that.

But we do have, we do have a studio audience today, but we keep our studio audiences gagged and bound actually. So they can't actually participate in the program. So that's actually Rich's job anyway.

So live response here. I hope that Bob Sullivan doesn't mind that we do this, but I have to listen to, to be able to follow along. So here we go. Yeah. Yeah. Someone Twitter says risky live response. It's like taking a boxing match last minute.

No, I, I think, I think our presentation on John six was pretty straightforward. So, and someone in channel just, just changed the topic to really slow studio. So if you're in the channel, you're now part of the really slow folks that that's really not what I was referring to, but that's okay.

Let's let's get to Bob Sullivan.

Hello, and thanks for clicking on my video. I want to take a few minutes tonight to talk a little bit about a video that was recently put out by a gentleman by the name of Dr. James White. Dr. James White is a Christian fundamentalist.

Now I just stopped right there. Christian.

Fundamentalist is an interesting description. I suppose from the Roman Catholic perspective, you don't differentiate, but you need to because meaningfully I would be a, a reformed theologian. And hence, while I would share with fundamentalists, a very high view of the inspiration of scripture, there would be a lot of, of differences, especially as how that fleshes out in life, at least with how the term is used amongst Roman Catholics.

Because I heard, hear the term fundamentalist used on Catholic answers live all the time. If you think that that's where I'm coming from, you might want to reread some of those books and, and see some of the differences there.

Spends a lot of time talking about the.

Church, about Catholic teachings. But he himself is not Catholic. And what he does is he misunderstands what the church actually teaches. And he misinterprets scripture.

Well, of course, if you say I'm going to misunderstand what the church teaches, let's, let's make sure to everyone recognize something. I do debates with Roman Catholic apologists. And so given that they're formal debates, there is equal time on the other side.

And so you would think that the constant theme of all these debates would be how I'm completely missing what Rome is teaching. And yet anyone who's watched those debates, and there's well over 30 of them, I think there's like 37, 38, just, just did one couple of weeks ago.

And probably going to be doing another one, Lord willing, next month down in, in South Africa, actually. You would think the constant theme would be misunderstanding, but you watch them, and it's very much focused upon what the church actually teaches.

And when I, when I make my presentations, I'm very often quoting from dogmatic sources. I know what the dogmatic sources are. Let's be honest, today, it's a little bit challenging to define Roman Catholic teaching in light of the fact that the, the current Pope very plainly has a very different perspective than the still living, but previous Pope.

And, and I, I think any Roman Catholic that, that would question that just is, is, is probably suffering from some level of self-delusion or deception, because the reality is that the vast majority of people, including conservative Roman Catholics, have recognized these differences.

So it's interesting to start off with, you know, charges of misrepresentation. We'll see if any of these are actually substantiated, especially, you know, because it should be pretty easy to do this. I've written one, two, three books specifically on Roman Catholicism.

I refer to Roman Catholicism in two others. So there'd be lots of documented grounds for doing this. And like I said, nearly 40 moderate public debates you could draw from. What I generally find is these accusations of misrepresentation are based upon, well, I don't agree with how you're taking it, or I don't agree with that particular spectrum of Roman Catholic teaching, or whatever else it might be.

But anyway. In order to try and make him.

Sound correct and the Catholic Church incorrect, most recently he spent about two hours going over John 6, which is one of the basic scripture passages that teaches the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation.

And so, in doing this, Dr.

I just want to make sure we notice here, this is, many modern-day Roman Catholic scholars would hesitate to go that far and say it actually teaches transubstantiation. I think the more careful statement would be that the Church's teaching of transubstantiation is based upon scripture, is consistent with John 6, and then elucidated by the tradition and the theologians.

That's a little bit more like what you'd get out of the Vatican today, I think. But look, the gentleman represents much more of the old-style conservative Roman Catholic perspective, that yes, the Bible is actually teaching this.

I'm not sure they're really aware of how many of their own theologians would be less willing to make that full type of a statement, because there's, you know, from most of the modern Roman Catholic theologians' perspectives, the Bible is not nearly as clear as Rome used to think that it was.

There's been a real infection of liberalism in the Magisterium itself, and so the terminology that they utilize is normally significantly less strong, as was just used there.

White has introduced at least one new argument against the Catholic teaching, and then he's also used some old arguments as well.

A new one? I didn't know I'd come up with a new argument. This is news to me. This is exciting to find out what the new argument is. Something tells me it's actually an old argument, probably goes back a long ways.

Maybe new to his experience, because he's assuming that I'm just like a quote-unquote fundamentalist, and maybe isn't familiar with Reformed Theology and things like that. We'll find out. I'm really excited.

We only have 11 minutes left, but I'm really excited, not in the show, but I'm really excited to find out what this new argument is.

So let's find out what it is. Basically, what he's doing is he's saying that he knows more than all the theologians, church councils, theology professors, and the vast majority of Christians for the last 2 ,000 years.

Okay, that's a complete bogus argument, but I hope you all recognize when someone throws out a complete violation of all canons of argumentation, you need to go, penalty box, you need to get off the ice for a little while here.

Whenever you hear someone saying that, do they back it up? What councils in the first 500 years talked about transubstantiation? None. What theologians in the first 500 years? None. So 2 ,000 years, all of them?

Once you make a statement like that, you just almost never, maybe if I'm not feeling good one day, I'm not thinking straight or you never hear me using the all argument. I think about the only place where I would do that, maybe, because I've made the statement that about the only belief that you can absolutely identify as universally held in the patristic period was monotheism.

Pretty much on anything else, you can find somebody who went off someplace. So I know enough about church history to not make that kind of argument because it's way too easy, way too easy to refute. And it's an appeal to ignorance.

It's an appeal to the ignorance of the audience that they could actually believe that all theologians are on my side and he's smarter than that. That's what he's saying. Listen to what I said. And what I did is I walked through John chapter six.

I wasn't saying, they're saying, I'm smarter than everybody else. I'm saying, here's what John chapter six says, can you interact with it? Can you deal with it? And my experience has been that Roman Catholics really move away from trying to do that because their ultimate authority is not that text.

It is an interpretive grid above that text. And they're uncomfortable when they're actually.

Forced to deal with just that. So as you can see, it's something worth taking a look at. See, like I said, John six is one of the verses that Catholics point to, to explain people, you know, what the Eucharist is and why we celebrate the mass and things like that.

Dr. White looked at that and he has two primary arguments. He uses an old argument, which is that John six is purely spiritual and not physical. And then he comes up with a new theory as to why the disciples walked away from Jesus saying the teaching was too hard.

In verse 66 of chapter six. Ah, so there's the new theory. The new theory, which actually is just simply the observation, sorry about that, is simply the observation of the reality. Here's what he's referring to for people who are not familiar with it.

And I'm watching, there's a bunch of commentary going on that Facebook thing on AHA while I'm not able to get involved with it because I'm dealing with the milk, the milk. I'm dealing with milk issues while they're dealing with the meat.

664, but there are some of you who are not believing, for he knew from the beginning who was not believing and who it was, who literally it is, and who is the betrayer of him. So he knew who the betrayer was, and that is, of course, referring to Judas.

And he was saying, Dea tuta, for this reason I said to you that no one is able to come to me unless it has been given to him by the Father. So I just simply recognized the fact that we don't have everything Jesus said in the synagogue Capernaum.

We have a summary of it from the Apostle John. And Jesus, upon going through that teaching, concluded by, in essence, bookending the whole presentation. At the beginning he says, you're not believing, why?

Because all the Father gives me should come to me, the one who comes to me I will cast out. He's putting everything focused upon him, his self-giving, his self-sacrifice. He's the source of all these things.

He's already defined eating and drinking as coming and believing. It's intimate union with Jesus Christ, has nothing to do with stuff that's going to be established later on, risk-tealing categories, any of these things.

It made sense to the people, they just didn't like the centrality that he was placing himself in. And then I pointed out in verse 65, for this reason I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him from the Father.

And so this is the reason. This is what they said was bothering them. This is offensive to people. In fact, it says he was saying, this is the imperfect tense, he was repeating this. He had said at the beginning, now he says at the end, he was repeating it, he was emphasizing it.

And what is offensive about it? No one is able. No one is able to come to me unless it has been granted to him by my Father. And so verse 66 says, because of this, so what's the immediate antecedent? The immediate antecedent is the repeated statement on Jesus's part of the fact that no one can come to him unless it's granted him by the Father.

This isn't new. This is simply what's called exegesis. This is simply following the text, looking at not only its grammar, but the syntax and the construction, the relationship of sentences, clauses, paragraphs.

This is just basic exegesis. This isn't something new. I would be shocked if there were not numerous people even before the Reformation that in looking at John 6 saw the exact same thing. This isn't the idea, this is a theory.

No, this is a fact of the grammar. And you need to deal with the fact of the grammar. And if you don't have a refutation of the fact of the grammar, then you have to accept it or be open about the fact you're rejecting what the inspired word actually says.

And remember, the Roman Catholic says, well, that's just your opinion. We have the infallible church. And then when you say, so has the church infallibly defined the antecedent of ectutu in the original language of John 666, any meaningful Roman Catholic, any reading at all will say, well, of course not.

No, I don't know. But we could if we wanted to. We could if we wanted to. Well, why don't you do it? Well, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. So I guess I'm a little disappointed that's the new theory, because it's not a new theory.

That's just simply how you do exegesis. I mean, right now in seminaries, literally around the world, but right here in the United States, right now you have students sitting in second year Greek and they are doing sentence diagramming.

Now, we didn't do John when I did second year Greek, but we did James, did portions of James. And I wonder if they're still folded up in the back of my second year textbook. I'd have to look, but I remember because we were living at the apartment back then and I had hair, was skinny.

It was great. Well, actually I wasn't all that skinny. Well, yeah, in college I still was, but it was seminary where age 25 is where the metabolism went. Anyway, and I remember laying, taking eight and a half by 11 sheets of paper and taping them together.

You had to put the tape on the back so you could draw over the over the seams, but taping them together to make this long thing that you could fold up where you were doing a sentence diagram or diagramming sentences and clauses and stuff like that.

I think it was in, it was in James. It was either James one or three. I wish it had been two because that would have been more helpful to me down the line, I suppose. And it ends up being this big old thing.

And if it goes far enough down this way, you had to put a piece of paper down here and tape it there. And now Accordance and BibleWorks and all those programs will just do all these things for you, which obviously isn't nearly as good for you as doing it yourself.

But anyway, there's nothing new to this. There are students right now sitting in classrooms across the United States that looking at John 666, the teacher is going to say, ech tutu. What is it related to?

What is its antecedent? What is coming before it? What's it referring to? These aren't theories. These are things that are worked out in reality. And you know, it even happens in Roman Catholic seminaries too, if they're still doing much of.

That kind of thing. In doing this, Dr. White, and I'll get to my argument on those here shortly, but in doing that, Dr. White basically says that, you know, we aren't saved by eating physical bread and we aren't saved by drinking physical wine.

We're saved by coming to Jesus, going to Jesus. And you know, he's kind of right with that. You know, Catholics agree that we are not saved by eating bread and drinking wine. And that's why we don't do that at Mass.

That's why we have the Eucharist at Mass. Because after the priest consecrates what was bread and what was wine, those are then truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, transubstantiation.

Paul. Again, that's what John 6 is talking about. Jesus was teaching, when Jesus says in verse 35, Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life, the one coming to me will never, it's ume, it's a strong denial, will never hunger.

Okay, so coming to me, this is before anything else is stated, before there's anything about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the one coming to me will never hunger. And the one believing in me will never thirst.

Same use of the same form of strong denial. So, Jesus establishes the categories. And the established categories is that whatever this eating and drinking is, it is satiated by coming and believing. So, again, there's the text.

And if you believe that you walk through a text and that it builds upon itself and that it defines its own categories, what are you going to do with that? If the text is not your final authority, then you just simply go, oh, well, it's an interesting theory.

But the church has said this is transubstantiation. And I don't have to establish anybody used that term back then because they didn't. And I don't have to establish that the apostles would have understood Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents and things like that.

Because my final authority is the modern Roman Catholic Church. And if it says that's what it means, then that's what it means. What it meant originally, what it meant in traditional context is irrelevant to me.

And this is where you see the difference between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia. It's a functional difference. And the meaning of the text becomes whatever Rome says it is in the one, rather than what Jesus spoke and what John intended and what his readers would have intended when the scriptures were actually written.

And remember, according to 2 Timothy 3, all scripture is theanustas. It's the scripture that's theanustas, not the church, not interpretations that come along at a later point. So the miracle of divine revelation is in the inscripturation itself, the final product of that process.

And that's what we're looking at, and that's what our final authority is. Rome fundamentally undercuts that. Fundamentally undercuts it. Has to. Because Rome defines as dogma de fide belief numerous things that have no foundation in scripture whatsoever.

The most recent example clearly being the definition of the bodily assumption of Mary. Oh, why do you go to Mary? Because it's the last dogma that was defined. It was only what, 63 years ago? 62 and a quarter, whatever.

Was it December? Or was that immaculate conception? Anyways, 1950s. Not that long ago. In fact, if it was 1950, then it was 67 years. But anyway, it's within the lifetime of some people in my audiences.

Not within my lifetime, and not even, amazingly, within Rich's lifetime, but within the lifetime of other folks. Just trying to keep you awake, man, because I can tell by the eyes, a little bit of wandering, so.

Really? Calling? Oh, just watching the stuff? Blaming you? Or naming you? Oh, of course. Well, you're the one that went over and talked to him. You're the bad guy. So there you go. They have nothing else to be doing.

So anyway, we press on here. We still have.

10 minutes to go. And so we agree with Dr. White on that. We also agree that in order to be saved, we must come to Christ. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way. And so that's why we do things like pray the Apostles' Creed.

We profess our faith in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. That's why we read the Scripture at every Mass. And the entire Catholic Mass is all based on Scripture.

It's got direct quotes and prayers. It's got readings and passages that we go through. And that's why...

Well, I suppose people do need to realize there's a lot of reading of Scripture, whether it's being read in context or whether it has anything to do with what's being done or things like that. That's not the point.