Why I Had To Apostatize

[epostle1]

Anti-Catholicism on the Internet​

by Robert P. Lockwood

In a paper presented to The Fifth Biennial Conference on Christianity and the Holocaust in October 1998, Mark Weitzman of The Simon Wiesenthal Center states that, "the Internet has not been investigated or analyzed by researchers for its anti-Catholic propaganda. It would almost seem that no one expects to find vestiges of classical bigotry in this new medium. My own research demonstrates quite a different story. Along with other forms of extremism... one can find anti-Catholicism to be visible as well."

Anti-Catholicism on the Internet is neither hidden nor difficult to find. Logon to any of the popular search engines for the Internet and type in "Roman Catholicism" or "Roman Catholic." More than likely, you will find in one of your first 10 options for websites to explore an Internet site dedicated to anti-Catholicism. If the Internet is our most contemporary means of communication and information gathering, then anti-Catholicism is entering the new Millenium in a powerful fashion.

There are any number of sophomoric sites spewing anti-Catholicism. Run either as one-man shows on personal websites or organized more professionally for profit, these sites are generally witless attempts at satire. At The Onion, a site for an allegedly humorous weekly newspaper published out of Wisconsin, pseudo news stories are run that lack either wit or satire. In the "religious archives" in a recent posting headlines read: "Aging Pope 'Just Blessing Everything in Sight' Say Concerned handlers.'"

One story --"Pope Calls for Greater Understanding Between Catholics, Hellbound" had the Pope saying: "During the Holocaust, the Church stood silently by while six million fellow human beings, guilty of nothing but the murder of Christ Our Lord, descended to the depths of brimstone at the hands of Protestants. Our intervention in that affair could have averted a monumental tragedy, and, more important, might have converted the souls of untold multitudes of evil heretics to the Holy Word of God."

At The Catholic Page, which is part of the "Anti-Religion Web Ring," there is "The Top 10 Reasons Why it Sucks To Be A Catholic." At Ask Sister Rosseta the so-called "Lavender Nun" engages in double-entendres and sexual buffoonery. Particularly blasphemous is a cartoonish rendition of Jesus on the cross that a person can "dress" in top hat and tails, rabbit slippers or other blasphemous outfits.

Pornography is ubiquitous on the Internet and sites that use Catholic imagery are commonplace. Models in various stages of undress garbed as clergy, bishops, priests, nuns and the pope engaged in sexual activity seems to feed in literally to the heritage of anti-Catholicism as "Puritan Pornography." The fetish nature of these sites is enhanced by the use of female models dressed in Catholic school uniforms. Even more repulsive are certain sites selling images of alleged Catholic girls. One such site, based in Canada, promises pornographic photos of "Catholic teens." (There appears to be no pornographic "Baptist teens" or "Jewish teens" sites.) In a particularly repulsive fashion, this site advertises virtual pedophilia--boys and girls--with a special emphasis on the Catholicity of the young models/victims of this pornography.

In mind-numbing detail are a host of traditional anti-Catholic cites. From rural churches and personal websites, to sites for fundamentalist publishing houses, the traditional anti-Catholicism that was said to have died with the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960 thrives on the Internet.

A major website is for the Jack Chick Company. Jack Chick was one of the first to realize in the post-Kennedy years that old-fashioned anti-Catholicism could still make a buck. He released a series of traditional anti-Catholic "comic books" in the 1970s, the most popular being Alberto.Chick, who publishes today out of California, also produces a range of small black-and-white tracts that viciously attack Catholic practices and beliefs. Perhaps the most tasteless among the tasteless is the "Death Cookie," that portrays the Eucharist as a Satanic-inspired ritual rooted in pagan beliefs.

At jesus-is-lord website vicious anti-Catholicism flourishes. Convents are referred to as "torture chambers" and 19th-century anti-Catholic polemics are excerpted. Jesus-is-lord provides the "Anti-Christ Slideshow" that stars "the popes of Rome and the great whore of revelation XVII the Roman Catholic Religion." The slideshow promises "blasphemy, torture, licentiousness, damnation, whoredom" and "the power of the devil." The counter for hits on Jesus-is-lord for about a two-year period shows that 1,172,583 visitors have logged onto the website.

At Harbor Lighthouse, produced by the Ankerberg Theological Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, a wealth of anti-Catholic material is readily available. In a posted article entitled "The Spiritual Battle for Truth" --which can be downloaded for $2 --Michael Grendon, who claims to be a former Catholic, writes: "Satan has been profoundly successful in deceiving multitudes in the name of Christ because his servants appear as ministers of righteousness. They wear high priestly garments and religious collars and carry boastful titles such as 'most reverend,' 'right reverend,' 'his excellency' and 'Holy Father.'"

Login to Excite search engine for Roman Catholicism and one quickly will encounter the website for Cutting Edge Ministry. With advertising sponsors such as Hickory Farms, Cutting Edge claims to "love you all" and wants Catholics to simply know the truth. Cutting Edge then proceeds to offer a series of articles that, among other things, claims that the Mass is witchcraft, the Holy Father is the Antichrist, the crucifix in Catholic churches is a Satanic symbol, and that "Roman Catholic teachings are blatant frauds upon the faithful people."

Lamb and Lion Ministries states that it was founded in 1980 as a "non-denominational, independent ministry." Run by a board of 24 trustees "from a variety of Christian fellowships," it is based in McKinney, Texas. Though its mission statement claims that the ministry "does not seek to convert people to any Church" it makes clear its purpose toward Catholics. The website seems dedicated to peddling tapes, videos, books and tracts from Dr. David Reagan. Dr. Reagan writes on the "Whore of Babylon" that, "I believe that the harlot church of revelation 17 will most likely be an amalgamation of the world's pagan religions, including apostate Protestants, under the leadership of the Catholic Church." Reagan also writes that the "apostasies of the Catholic Church are great in number and profound in their implications for the Christian faith... (Catholicism) is the ancient Babylonian mystery religion parading in new clothes, worshipping Mary as the 'Queen of Heaven.'"

An army of individual pastors, and their local churches have put up sites dedicated to traditional anti-Catholicism. One of the most loathsome is from Pastor Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps refers to the Catholic Church as a "fag" church and posts an alleged "Diary of Another Fag Catholic Priest." He asserts that, "fag priests and dyke nuns is the order of the day for Kansas Catholics. They deserve the sick, perverted leadership that now dooms and damns them."
There are numerous websites by alleged ex-Catholics that engage in evangelization aimed specifically at Catholics. Most use anti-Catholicism as their primary means of attack. Very few rely on a positive presentation of a faith to which they hope to convert Catholics. At Pro-Gospel they "untangle Roman Catholics from the dogmatic jungle in which they are held captive." So-called "born again" Catholics--those who have left the Church--are told to contact their Catholic friends to "rescue those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They --Catholics--have been in submission to the controlling, irrefutable dogmas of the Catholic clergy." The site has registered 898,128 hits.

Good News for Catholics is dedicated to the proposition that the "Roman Catholic Church has led its people astray." The organization itself began in 1981 by a very public distribution of anti-Catholic booklets at the consecration of Bishop Pierre DuMaine at San Jose, CA. On the website, they describe the Catholic Church as an "unbiblical form of Christianity which has deceived the Catholic people. It cannot be reformed or revived."

In his paper on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism on the Internet, Michael Weitzman spends a great deal of his effort on fringe groups. Anti-Catholicism, however, is not confined solely to such fringes on the Internet. There are any number of strictly secular websites with particular secular agendas that routinely engage in anti-Catholic rhetoric. While it is easy to condemn a Jack Chick or a Michael Grenden, public activist organizations such as the National Abortion Rights Action League or the National Education Association routinely employ anti-Catholicism in their public positions.

The website for the gay newspaper The Advocate reproduced a recent commentary from the newspaper by Michael Signorille. Called "benevolent hatemongers," the author attacked Pope John Paul II for his comments on the gay pride march in Rome during the Jubilee Year.
While decrying alleged, "hate speech," Signorille engages in rhetoric not dissimilar to Grenden, saying that Pope John Paul II "revealed before the whole world that he is a hateful man... (his hatred is) no different from Stalin's or even Hitler's... But the fact that the pope is a virulent hatemonger is something that religious and political leaders don't dare admit --though they may privately agree --lest they be labeled attackers of the all-powerful Catholic Church."
This is not taking issue. This is not disagreement. This is simply anti-Catholic hate speech. And it is everywhere on the Internet.
source

 

[epostle1]

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16: If anyone says that he will
for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of
perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special
revelation, let him be anathema.

Webster's defines "anathema" as a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by
ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

Yes, they used words like that in the 16th century. Maybe you would like me to quote Martin Luther and how he felt about the Jews. Formal excommunication is intended to make heretics come to their senses and return to the fold, technically they excommunicated themselves first. It's usually for theologians or bishops.

At the very least, Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16
denounces Catholics brazen enough to think they have what it takes to be
persistent at doing good; and rightly so seeing as how no doubt Rome itself
has yet to succeed in consistently exemplifying even so much as the
Beatitudes or the Sermon On The Mount; let alone the rest of the New
Testament. Ergo: seeking after glory and honor and immortality via Roman
Catholicism is an iffy proposition at best.

=========================
It's interesting that you make dogmatic declarations on a religion you despise and comments on a 500 year old encyclical that you know nothing about due to your self acclaimed authority.

This particular canon cannot be taken in isolation from the context. It doesn't mean what you want it to mean. This part of the Council of Trent is about justification, Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16. Absolute assurance of salvation, or justification by faith alone is the topic. Catholics are brazen enough to think that whatever good we do is done by the grace of Christ so you are dead wrong. Here's some context from Trent that you probably will never read:

CHAPTER XVI
THE FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, THAT IS, THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS, AND THE NATURE OF THAT MERIT
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.[93]
For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name;[94] and, Do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward.[95]

Hence, to those who work well unto the end[96] and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.[97]

For this is the crown of justice which after his fight and course the Apostle declared was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming.[98]

For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,[100] since Christ our Savior says:

If anyone shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting.[101]

Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves,[102] nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, Christ promises, shall not lose his reward;[103] and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory;[104] nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord,[105] whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits.

And since in many things we all offend,[106] each one ought to have before his eyes not only the mercy and goodness but also the severity and judgment [of God]; neither ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything;[107] because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged not by the judgment of man but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God,[108] who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works.[109]

After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified, it seemed good to the holy council to add to these canons, that all may know not only what they must hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun....
33 canons followed.

footnotes/references:
95. Heb. 10:35.
96. Matt. 10:22.
97. Rom. 6:22.
98. See II Tim. 4:8.
99. John 15:1f.
100. Apoc. 14:13.
101. John 4:13f.
102. Rom. 10:3; II Cor. 3:5.
103. Matt. 10:42; Mark 9:40.
104. See II Cor. 4:17.
105. See I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17.
106. James 3:2.
107. See I Cor. 4:3f.
108. Ibid., 4:5.
109. Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Apoc. 22:12.
110. Cf. supra, chaps. 1, 3.
111. Ibid., chap. 5.
112. Rom. 5:5.
113. Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:5.
114. Supra, chaps. 7, 8.
115. Gal. 2:16; supra, chap. 7.
116. Rom. 5:5.
117. Supra, chap. 9.
118. Supra, chap. 9.
119. Supra, chap. 12.
120. Ibid., chap. 13.
121. Ibid., chap. 11.
122. Cf. chap. cit.
123. Supra, chap. 13.
124. Ibid., chap. 14.
125. Ibid., chap. 10.
126. Ibid., chap. 11 at the end.
127. Ibid., chap. 16.
128. Matt. 24:13.
129. Supra, chap. 15.
130. Ibid., chap. 14.
131. Cf. Sess. XIV, chap. 8.
132. Cf. Sess. XXV at the beginning.
133. Supra, chap. 11 at the end.

The Council of Trent has scripture in it??? Who knew???

Perhaps you are unaware that the Lutheran and the Catholic Churches made a joint declaration on justification. It's been around for over 20 years. You can read about it here:

It's a mistake to cherry pick from any Catholic document and manipulate it.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
ASSERTION: Mary was selected to be Christ's mom because she was a
wonderful, ultra pious human being.

RESPONSE: First and foremost: Christ's mother had to meet an irrevocable
prerequisite that had nothing at all to do with her personality. She had to be
one of David's biological grandchildren because Christ in turn had to be
David's biological grandchild in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his
throne. This prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old
Testament in a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and
Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30 and Rom 1:3)

OBJECTION: David was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was related to Elizabeth
who in turn was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36)

RESPONSE: Judah and Levi are biological brothers by means of Leah. (Gen
35:23)

Q: So what are you saying? That the "Holy Mary, Mother Of God" was a
mere baby mill?

A: Women have been milling babies since the very beginning-- it is their
purpose in life; there's no shame in it.

†. Gen 3:16 . .Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children

†. Gen 3:20 . .And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she became
the mother of all living. (cf. 1Tim 2:13-15)

Catholicism has so mystified Christ's mom to the point where she's no longer
a real-life Jewish woman with thoughts and feelings of her own. And for
somebody to be ticked off because I called her a baby mill is both an
oxymoron and a non sequitur.

Perhaps my critics would prefer that men have the periods, and the bloating,
and the pregnancies, and the deliveries, and the means for breast feeding.
Christ's mom had all that, and I'm not even going to get into feminine
hygiene and the ladies' room. I demand that Catholicism bring Christ's mom
back to reality: de-mystify Joseph's wife, and make her a human being again
like she was to begin with.

=========================

 

[epostle1]

ASSERTION: Mary was selected to be Christ's mom because she was a
wonderful, ultra pious human being.

You are too proud to admit you were wrong about the Council of Trent so you change the topic.


RESPONSE: First and foremost: Christ's mother had to meet an irrevocable
prerequisite that had nothing at all to do with her personality. She had to be
one of David's biological grandchildren because Christ in turn had to be
David's biological grandchild in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his
throne. This prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old
Testament in a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and
Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30 and Rom 1:3)

I suggest you re-read your verses, they have nothing to do with Mary.

OBJECTION: David was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was related to Elizabeth
who in turn was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36)

RESPONSE: Judah and Levi are biological brothers by means of Leah. (Gen
35:23)

Q: So what are you saying? That the "Holy Mary, Mother Of God" was a
mere baby mill?

A: Women have been milling babies since the very beginning-- it is their
purpose in life; there's no shame in it.

Milling babies?

REDEEMER IN THE WOMB

†. Gen 3:16 . .Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children

†. Gen 3:20 . .And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she became
the mother of all living. (cf. 1Tim 2:13-15)

Are you among the OFFSPRING in Rev. 12:17 ?

Gen. 3:15

These are the only two verses in the entire bible that contain
A) a woman
B ) a dragon/serpent
In the same verse.

The connection is relevant but you are a long way from seeing it.

Catholicism has so mystified Christ's mom to the point where she's no longer
a real-life Jewish woman with thoughts and feelings of her own. And for
somebody to be ticked off because I called her a baby mill is both an
oxymoron and a non sequitur.

People get ticked off because you have no respect for the holy.

Perhaps my critics would prefer that men have the periods, and the bloating,
and the pregnancies, and the deliveries, and the means for breast feeding.
Christ's mom had all that, and I'm not even going to get into feminine
hygiene and the ladies' room. I demand that Catholicism bring Christ's mom
back to reality: de-mystify Joseph's wife, and make her a human being again
like she was to begin with.

=========================


Mary has never been more than a human being. Her grace comes from Christ. You sure have some awful preconceived notions for someone claiming to be an ex-Catholic. Obviously you didn't learn anything. Any devotion to Mary that doesn't lead us closer to Christ is a false devotion. I'm sorry your programming forbids you to comprehend this. Anti-Catholics are obsessed with Mary because they think they can trump Catholics with shallow eisegesis, and we have to sort out which of the 40,000 premise is yours. Your advantage is that you have invented your own church.

The sense of the sacred is found in the Old Testament, specifically, The Ark of the Covenant. It is the basis of all Marian doctrines. That is the starting point or anything else is a waste of time. But to you, The Ark of the Covenant may be just a box, (since Mary is just an incubator) in which case there is no point in having a discussion.

run... and keep changing the topic... so you can keep running.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
It's commonly believed that Christ wasn't effected by the so-called original
sin because it wasn't passed down to him by a biological father. But it's easy
to debunk that theory by going back to the very beginning.

Adam was created directly from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

She was created from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side.
Thus Eve wasn't a second species of h.sapiens. She was biologically just as
much Adam as Adam except for gender. In other words: Eve was the flip
side of the same biological coin. According to Gen 5:2, Eve is Adam the
same as Adam is Adam.

So then, human life biologically produced by Eve-- whether virgin conceived
or naturally conceived --is biologically just as much Adam as Adam because
the source of its mother's life is Adam.

†. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

It is pretty much universally agreed among Christians that the offspring
spoken of in that passage is Christ. Well; seeing as how Christ derived his
life from Eve, and she in turn derived her life from Adam, then it's readily
deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome
necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't.
However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of
man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to
construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And
seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then
any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was
produced from Adam's flesh.

Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a
person need only be one of Eve's biological descendants: which we all are;
including Christ and his mother.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

It was the creator's deliberate design that all human life be derived from a
solo specimen of human life.

†. Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth

The Greek word for "nation" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to racial
diversity.

On numerous occasions, Christ identified himself as "son of man". That title
was neither new nor unique in his day. God addressed the prophet Ezekiel as
"son of man" on at least 93 occasions; and in every case, the Hebrew word
for man is 'adam (aw-dawm') which is the proper name of the human race
God that created in the very beginning from the flesh of just one man. If
Jesus Christ had not biologically descended from Adam, then he would be a
bald-faced liar for calling himself son of man.

So then; seeing as how Christ is Adam's biological progeny, then Christ,
right along with all the rest of Adam's biological progeny, shares the guilt of
tasting the forbidden fruit.

†. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

†. Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were
made sinners.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to Adam's disobedience, then how
can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: Adam's disobedience made Christ a sinner right along with his fellow
men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal
sins of his own (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). We're not
talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, nor about Rome's "stain"
fantasy; no, we're talking about a class-action felony, so to speak.

The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how Adam's demise is the proper
satisfaction of justice for his sin (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for
his race's own personal sins is another matter.

====================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. Luke 1:43 . . And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me?

That passage is a common proof text as scriptural evidence that Mary is the
mother of God; but its a poor choice for that purpose.

When Elizabeth made that statement, she was filled with the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:41). To be consistent, the Holy Spirit would have to be in agreement
with Gabriel's announcement.

†. Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never
end.

To a Spirit-filled Jew like Elizabeth, the term "my Lord" doesn't mean my
God; no, it means my king; viz: the ultimate Davidic monarch predicted in
the Old Testament to rule over the nation of Israel from within a theocratic
kingdom of peace and prosperity.

New Testament Greek isn't classical Greek, nor is it modern Greek. It's a
kind of ancient Greek called koiné, which was a lingua franca in common use
during the first century. There's no formal capitalization in New Testament
Greek and no punctuation either.

Capitalizations and punctuations have been penciled in at the discretion of
translators, and often reflect their own best guess, and quite possibly their
own personal religious beliefs too. So then "my Lord" can just as easily be
translated; "my lord" and even as "my master" (cf. Matt 18:26 where a
debtor addressed his king as lord, and also fell down and did obeisance).

New Testament Greek doesn't have a glossary of precise terms for God like
Old Testament Hebrew does. The Greek word kurios (koo'-ree-os) is sort of
a catch-all. It can apply to God as well as to anybody who's either superior
in rank, in authority, or social status (e.g. Matt 10:24, Matt 13:27, Matt
18:25, and Matt 24:45). The kurios at Luke 1:43 is the same kurios used for
Abraham at 1Pet 3:6, and used for Jesus by non Spirit-filled people at least
twenty times in the book of Matthew alone.

So then, when interpreting kurios in Luke 1:43, it first needs to be
remembered that Miriam and Elizabeth were both Jewish women. The
religion that they each believed and practiced wasn't Catholicism, nor was it
Christianity; no, their religion was Old Testament Judaism. According to their
religion, it's appropriate to address the Aaronic priests, and the kings of the
Davidic dynasty, as "my lord" (e.g. 1Sam 1:26, and 2Sam 4:8).

Miriam was told that her baby would ascend the throne of its ancestor David.
Thus, it was quite appropriate for a Spirit-filled Jewish woman like Elizabeth
to refer to Miriam's baby as "my kurios" in recognition of its right to rule
over her own self, as well as over the whole nation of Israel.

†. Dan 7:13-14 . . In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was
one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory
and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass
away, and his kingdom is the one that will never be destroyed.

Compare Psalm 110:1 and Matt 22:42-45 where David recognized his
Messianic son's superior rank and called him 'adown in the Old Testament,
which doesn't mean God, no, it means master-- the same word Sarah
referred to Abraham in Gen 18:12, and the same word Ephron referred to
Abraham in Gen 23:11-15, and the same word Rachel referred to her dad
Laban in Gen 31:35.

It's very common for non-Jews, poorly trained in Old Testament Christology,
to read Christian thinking into the Bible and thus err in regards to Christ's
Davidic royalty. Below is an example of an enlightened Gentile woman who
knew a thing or two about Messiah's rank; and accepted his sovereignty
over not only the Jews, but over herself and the entire world as well.

†. Matt 15:21-22 . .Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of
Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same
coasts, and cried unto him, saying: Have mercy on me, O lord, thou son of
David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

That woman called Jesus "lord, son of David" rather than Lord son of God
because she knew nothing of the so-called deity of Christ. All she knew was
Christ's Jewish relationship to Davidic royalty, and that is how she addressed
him.

People commonly addressed Christ by the title kurios; e.g. the promiscuous
woman at the well (John 4:11). The only thing she knew about Jesus was his
gender and ethnicity. He was just some Jewish guy the cat dragged in; yet
she addressed him by a title that Catholicism would dearly love to assume
means God in Elizabeth's statement. In that woman's case, kurios certainly
did not mean God; not even close.

====================================

 

[epostle1]

Luke, like Matthew, introduces Mary as a virgin betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of David. She is greeted by the angel Gabriel: "Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you."

The angel uses a word - variously translated hail or rejoice - that the prophets used to foretell the joy of the people at the Messiah’s coming (see Joel 2:23-24; Zechariah 9:9).

In fact, the angel’s announcement seems to be drawn almost word-for-word from a prophecy of Zephaniah (see Zephaniah 3:14-18)

Luke 1 Zephaniah 3
Hail, Shout for joy,
favored one! O daughter Zion! .
The Lord The King of Israel, the Lord
is with you…. is in your midst…
Do not be afraid, Mary Fear not, O Zion…
You will conceive in your womb Your God is in your midst,
...[the] Son of the Most High a mighty savior


Luke seems to be depicting Mary as Daughter Zion - the representative of her people - called to rejoice that God, as her Savior and King, has come into her midst.

As in Matthew, then, we see the historic hopes of Israel focused in the person of Mary. The words the prophets taught Israel to long to hear - "Say to daughter Zion, your Savior comes!" (see Isaiah 62:11) - are heard now by Mary.

The angel also tells Mary that her Son will be "Son of the Most High" and will be given "the throne of David His father."

For the literal meaning of this passage, we have to return to the Old Testament background of God’s covenant with David

In fact, in the angel’s words we hear echoes of God’s covenant with David (see 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalm 89:4-5; 27-30).

God swore that David’s son would be "a son to Me." And the angel promises that Mary’s child will be "Son of the Most High" - another way of saying "Son of God" (see Mark 5:7;Luke 1:35; 8:28).

God swore that David’s son would rule on his throne forever. The angel promises that Mary’s Son will be seated on "the throne of David his father…forever."

Mary is shown here to be the "sign" that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah from David’s dynastic line. ..

...
B. Typology and Mary
This way of reading and writing is broadly known as typology. And typology is critical to understanding what the Bible has to say about Mary.

Typology is the way Jesus taught the Apostles to read the Old Testament.

He referred to Jonah (see Matthew 12:39-41), Solomon (see Matthew 12:42), the Temple (see John 2:19) and the brazen serpent (see John 3:14) as "types" or "signs" that prefigured Him.

On the first Easter night He said that, "Everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled" (see Luke 24:44-45).

What He showed them was that the persons, places, things and events of the Old Testament were written to prepare us for Him.

Jesus and the Apostles were already familiar with this way of reading from the Old Testament and the liturgical readings they heard in the synagogue. In the writings of the prophets and psalmists, often we find typological readings of earlier events, deployed to prepare Israel for its coming savior.

Isaiah spoke of a new creation (see Isaiah 65:17) and a new exodus (see Isaiah 11:10-11,15-16; 43:16-22; 51:9-11).

He and others, notably Ezekiel and Jeremiah, spoke of the coming of a new Davidic shepherd-king and the restoration of the kingdom (see Isaiah 9:1-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6;Ezekiel 16:59-63; 34:24-30; 37:23-28).

The New Testament writers saw each these great "types" - creation, the exodus and the covenant-kingdom of David - gloriously reprised in the New Covenant of Jesus.

Jesus was the New Adam, the first born of a new creation (see Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 45-49). His Cross and Resurrection mark a new exodus (see Luke 9:31; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4). His Church is the new Jerusalem and the new Kingdom of David (see Galatians 4:26; Acts 1:6-9; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6).

 

[epostle1]

Mary’s first appearance in the New Testament comes in its very first chapter - at the end of the long genealogy that begins the New Testament.
She is introduced as: "Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah" (see Matthew 1:16).

We have to read these words in context. These are the final words of a list of descendants Matthew has drawn up to demonstrate that Jesus is "Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (see Matthew 1:1).

To understand the literal meaning of this text about Mary, then, we have to know some background about the Christ, and about David and Abraham.

Abraham was the founding father of God’s chosen people, Israel. God made a covenant with him, promising that through his descendants "all the nations of the earth shall find blessing" (see Genesis 22:18).

God promised Abraham that kings would stem from his line (see Genesis 17:6) and later swore an oath to Israel’s King David - that his kingdom would have no end, that David’s son would be His son and would reign forever, not only over Israel but over all the nations (see2 Samuel 7:12-13; Psalm 89:27-28; Psalm 132:4-5; 11-12).

But David’s kingdom crumbled and the people were dispersed into exile (see Matthew 1:11;2 Kings 24:14).

From that time forward, Israel’s prophets taught them to hope for a "Christ" (or "Messiah" in Hebrew). He was expected to be the son of God promised to David, who would liberate Israel’s scattered tribes and reunite them in a new and everlasting kingdom that would be a light to the nations (see Isaiah 9:5-6; 49:6; 55:3; Ezekiel 34:23-25,30; 37:25).
Read in context, then, the few words that Matthew gives us about Mary are no trifling matter.
In this short sentence, Matthew has effectively positioned Mary at the center of Israel’s history - the history of God’s chosen people. Of her was born the Christ through whom God would fulfill His covenant promises to Abraham and David.

As mother of the royal Messiah of Israel, Mary is also necessarily at the center of human history. For the fruit of her womb will be the source of the world’s salvation. Through Christ, born of Mary, God will bestow His divine blessings upon all nations and peoples.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church
dogma; especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who
disavows a revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief
or doctrine; viz: a nonconformist.

There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who
would never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are
anyway. The New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret
ee-kos') which means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church
who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and
disharmony.

In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the
same church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same
religion that you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic
would be a professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and
attempts to persuade other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues
like abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage.

Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.

†. Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.

Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a
religious faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an
apostate is a defector whereas an heretic is a dissenter.

Q: Why can't I oppose Rome's stance on some things? Surely you don't
suggest that makes me a bad Catholic. I'm just being democratic; after all:
dissent is a human right.

A: The USA is a democracy consisting of a representative form of
government. The Church is a theocracy consisting of a monarchal form of
government; viz: The Church is not a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people; but rather; it's a government of Christ, by Christ,
and for Christ-- a monarch who expects nothing less than 110% loyalty from
his subjects; which, relative to the pew warmer, implies submission to
Rome.

†. Matt 16:19 . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Those keys were not given to the rank and file; they were given to the
hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling
against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's a domino effect
all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Dissention within the Church isn't democratic; no, dissention within the
Church is all the same as pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping
Shiva and Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.

Several years ago, on Good Morning America, a Monsignor was asked by
David Hartman and Joan Lunden about Catholic dissidents, and he replied:
"They've left the Church; and don't know it."

†. Matt 12:30 . . He that is not with me is against me

One of the New Testament's Greek words for "lord" is despotes (des-pot'
ace) which indicates absolute rule; viz: despotism. That word is applied to
Christ in more than one location in the New Testament. Despots typically
have little patience with dissenters.

According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Newsweek, a Gallup pole taken during
April 2005, on "difficult moral questions" showed that 74% of USA Catholics
would follow their own conscience rather than the authority of Rome. Just
20% said they would follow Rome. Apparently 6% were undecided.

Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're
undecided); and this coming from a 71 year-old ex Catholic who was faithful
to Rome for the first 24+ years of his life. If you can't give your whole-
hearted support to those whom you profess to believe hold the keys of the
kingdom; then it's time to bow out. It would be far better for all concerned,
yourself included, to defect and to self-excommunicate rather than to hang
around causing division and attempting to reform a religion that you find
impossible to support as-is.

Catholic pew-warmers like that are not true Catholics at all; no, not in any
sense of the word. They're hybrids; actually Protestant Catholics, who have,
in spirit, already left the Church but just can't bring yourselves to step out
the door and make it final.

†. Rev 3:15-16 . . I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I
would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither
hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

====================================

 

[epostle1]

You need to be up-to-date. Your information is 10 years old. Mine is 3 weeks old. Catholics are free to disagree with the Church, they are not free to rebel, so you got that wrong. Newsweek 2005? Really? Newsweek ranks among the most anti-Catholic news sources going, so nothing reliable concerning Catholicism can come from them.

September 3, 2015
In terms of methodological precision, the Pew Research Center has no rival. Its latest survey is no exception: it offers an in-depth picture of Catholics. But its decision to examine those who are no longer Catholic, or never were, is of questionable utility.
The title and subtitle of the report reflect its discontinuity. The title reads, “U.S. Catholics Open to Non-Traditional Families.” The subtitle, “45% of Americans Are Catholic or Connected to Catholicism” bears no relationship to the title. Moreover, it is not clear why this figure even matters. “Connected to Catholics”?
Most surveys contrast practicing and non-practicing Catholics, as judged by Mass attendance. This survey does this as well, but it also includes “Cultural Catholics,” namely, those who are no longer Catholic but continue to think of themselves as such (converts and non-believers). Probing self-identity is an interesting subject, but to what end? If a vegetarian turns carnivorous, yet persists in considering himself a vegetarian, would we include him in a survey of vegetarians? Pew’s typology also includes self-identified “Ex-Catholics.” Would ex-Muslims be included in a survey of Muslims? And as noted, the survey includes “Connected to Catholics.” We never learn why they are worth studying.
Not surprisingly, “Cultural Catholics” and “Ex-Catholics” are less likely to accept the Church’s teachings. But it is nice to know they like the pope.
One finding which never varies is the correlation between Mass attendance and fidelity to Church teachings: practicing Catholics are the most likely to accept the teachings of the Church; women, seniors, and those who are married are the most practicing. In this regard, “Most Catholics are very loyal to the church,” is one of its most salient findings.
There is much to mine in this report. Unfortunately, there is much that is of dubious significance.
PEW SURVEY IS UNIQUE BUT NOT A GAME-CHANGER

 

[epostle1]

G.K. Chesterton once said that the best argument against Christianity is Christians. That is certainly true of Catholicism. Pope John Paul II, putting it politely, says, "The Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty." (Ut Unum Sint, 11). But is that really an argument against the truth of the faith? I don't see how. To argue that Catholicism is untrue because it doesn't transform the lives of those who don't practice it, is like arguing that aspirin doesn't work because it doesn't relieve the headaches of those who don't take it.
"My family claims to be Catholic, but they don't take it seriously, either."

Try to remember that many people are Catholic by default. If you ask them what they are, they'll say, "Oh, I'm Catholic." But what they mean is, "My ancestors were Catholic." It's more an ethnicity than a religion for some people. It's what they are, not what they believe.
"I agree with the basic teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church. But, I am still in the Baptist church. That is because I don't see enough fruits coming from the Catholic Church."

Actually, it's an individual (not a church) that's supposed to produce good fruit. A church can only proclaim the Gospel and introduce people to the One Who alone can make them bear fruit, but it can't make people believe its teachings, and it can't make people live its life. Good fruit, then, is how we tell if an individual is a faithful disciple. The fact is, you can find plenty of good fruit in the Catholic Church, and you can find plenty of good fruit in the various Protestant churches, too. And that's because the secret to bearing fruit is to have a living, vital relationship with Jesus Christ, who is the source of all grace and life. And because the Catholic Church has been endowed with the fullness of the means of grace that Christ established, a Catholic is able to have the closest possible relationship with Jesus, including even the reality of physical communion with Him.

But notice I say, "is able to have," not "is guaranteed to have." There are indeed plenty of people who call themselves Catholic, but who refuse to believe the Church's teachings, refuse to obey its precepts, and refuse to live the life it calls them to live. Not surprisingly, these people aren't magically converted into living saints just by walking through the Church door. So, if you want to look for fruit, be sure you look on the tree. You can't expect to find fruit on the dried-up branches that have severed themselves from the tree, and that are strewn all about it. I'll be the first to admit that the Catholic faith doesn't work if you don't practice it. It doesn't work by osmosis, or by genetics, or by proximity. You actually have to believe it, and live it. You have to have a living relationship with the Lord Jesus in order to bear fruit, and many "Catholics" have rejected that relationship, despite being given every opportunity to embrace it.

"How can the Catholic Church's claims be true when so many Catholics are so dead?"

The Church only claims to announce the Good News of Jesus Christ, and it invites everyone to embrace the life of grace He offers. It does not claim that people who spurn its teachings and reject its life will be transformed into faithful disciples anyway. Nor does it claim that being born to Catholic parents guarantees that a person will inherit his parents' faith. If you want to see the fruit of the Catholic faith, you have to look at the people who are committed to the faith, who take it seriously and put it into practice every day. It's pointless to look at those who are cultural Catholics only, who say they're Catholic if you ask them, but who don't try to live the life, even though they may go to Mass out of habit, or guilt, or whatever. People aren't magically transformed into good Christians just by walking into a Catholic church (even if they do it every week). Repentance and conversion of heart are the keys to the Christian life. Without them, everything else is sterile and false, whether one calls oneself "Catholic" or not.
"I don't see many truly saved people with transformed lives; instead I see many cultural Catholics that think going to Mass one hour a week will get them into Heaven even though they are living otherwise sinful lives."

I've known such people. It's truly sad. But to compare the best Evangelicals with the worst Catholics is hardly fair. If you want to see the real fruit of the Catholic faith, look at the people who actually put it into practice. As you know, the Catholic Church has produced some of the greatest, most on-fire saints the world has ever known. Some of them converted whole nations to Christ. We still marvel at their faith and holiness many centuries after they died.

"How can I move from such a dynamic soul-winning church that I am in now into such a seemingly dead church seemingly full of untransformed people?"

Before I became Catholic, I asked myself the same question, because I'd heard all sorts of horror stories about how dead the Catholic Church was, and since I'd known several Catholics who were as worldly as any pagan, I believed them. So as I became more and more convinced that the Catholic Church taught the truth, I thought, "But Lord, they're all so dead." And then I remembered His words: "What is that to you? You follow me." And I realized that it really wasn't important whether the guy in the pew next to me was living the faith, it was important whether I was. It was as if the Lord was saying to me, "You need to follow the truth, even if you're the only one who does."
Happily, my fears turned out to be unfounded. I've met plenty of on-fire Catholics since I've joined the Church, and I've found several local parishes where the faith is truly lived and preached.
"A girl that I am friends with, who has little knowledge of the theological issues between Catholics and Protestants said simply, "I am not a Catholic because they don't emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus." I am sure that many committed catholics such as yourself have vastly different experiences, but you must admit, the problem of simply going through the motions with little understanding of the significance seems rampant in the Church. Am I being unfair?"

Yes. As I said, you're comparing the best Evangelicals with the worst Catholics. But I do think it's easier to be a nominal Catholic than to be a nominal Evangelical. Catholicism is an embodied faith. It's very physical, expressing itself through signs and meaningful rituals and practices. Ideally, those practices are joyful ways of expressing the interior reality of God's grace in our lives. They give form and substance to the reality of our faith. But if that reality isn't there, it's still possible to go through the physical motions of the faith because of habit, or whatever. In other words, it's possible to mistake faith's expression for faith itself, as if the outward signs of our faith, and not the reality they are meant to express, are what's important. That does happen, and it's a shame, because going through the motions won't get anybody to Heaven.

On the other hand, Evangelicalism is largely devoid of physicality. It is a religion almost exclusively characterized by intellectual commitment. Therefore, if you don't have that commitment, there's nothing else there, so you leave. This is good in the sense that it focuses on the primary importance of belief and conversion of heart, and because it's more difficult to fool yourself into thinking you're a "good Christian" when you're not, but Evangelicals really are missing something by not having a rich physical tradition with which to express their faith. When you combine real interior faith with meaningful exterior expression, the result is incredible, believe me. And the best Catholics, like the best Evangelicals, know that a personal relationship with Jesus is the goal of the Christian life. We just have a whole lot of ways to express and experience that relationship.
"I spent a summer in Mexico City and a semester in Santiago de Compostela, but with the exception of one little old lady, for all of the students that I met, I can't say that I met any committed Catholics, and this in Catholic countries where virtually everyone would at least say that they are Catholics."

Well, what else would you expect in a "Catholic country"? In some countries, Catholicism is the "default religion." It's what you say you are when someone asks, even if you haven't set foot in a church in years. It's the same with Protestant Christianity in this country. If you ask most Americans what religion they are, they'll say "Well, gee, I'm not Jewish, I'm not Moslem, I'm not Hindu, so I guess I must be Christian." In this country, Christianity is the default religion. And if you ask these people whether they're Catholic or Protestant, most will say "Well, I'm not Catholic, so I guess I must be Protestant." Protestantism is the default version of Christianity in this country. But it would hardly be fair to judge Protestantism based on the people who, if pressed, would say they're Protestants, but who may never have seen the inside of a church, or read a single verse of Scripture. Same goes for judging Catholicism by the so-called Catholics in "Catholic countries."
"And yet the Evangelicals that I met almost always were "set apart," meaning they read their Bibles, took their faith seriously, etc."

In a nominally Catholic country, wouldn't you expect the Evangelicals to stand out? And since they've deliberately chosen a religion other than the default religion, wouldn't you expect them to take it more seriously than those who've opted for the default just out of habit or family tradition?

by Harry Hoge

 

[Webers_Home]

-
AFFIRMATION: There is nothing wrong with traditions, so long as they are
founded and based in the Bible.

RESPONSE: That's precisely where the rub is. Many of Rome's beliefs and
traditions are "based" upon the Bible rather than taken from the Bible; e.g.
Hollywood movies are often based upon true stories while not being
duplicates of the true stories. What I mean is: movies based upon true
stories are not meant to be documentaries, but rather, the concept of the
movie was obtained from a true story but typically with events and
circumstances altered in such a way as to make the story appeal to a larger
audience.

An example is the 2008 movie "21" starring Kevin Spacey; about some MIT
students who cleaned up in Las Vegas counting cards at Black Jack. The
story is true, but the movie version of the story isn't. It's a dramatized
version of the true story. If Hollywood had told the MIT students' story true
to life, it would have been dull to most of the audience.

A good example of Rome's practice in this respect are prayers to the dead.
Since the Bible encourages believers on the earth to pray for one another,
Rome construes that it's even better to request prayer from believers in
Heaven. That tradition of course is nowhere in the New Testament, but
rather, based upon the New Testament just like Hollywood movies that are
based upon true stories.

Q: Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only
in the Bible's texts? Haven't you read 2Thss 2:15?

A: There's a cute movie out on DVD called Legally Blonde. In one of Elle's
classes at college, her law teacher asked everybody a technical question.
One of the female students tendered an answer and the Prof asked one of
the male students if he agreed with the answer given by the female student.
He did. Then the professor asked the male student if he was willing to bet
his life that the answer the female gave was correct. He said yes. Then the
Prof pointed to a male student in the front row and asked the first if was
willing to bet the second student's life that the answer was correct.

You see what Rome would like to do to me? It would like me to bet my own
life that it's so-called Apostolic Traditions are valid. Well; let me tell them a
thing or two: It's my own derriere that's on the line before God, not theirs;
so if they don't mind, I prefer to take full responsibility for my own future
rather than let Rome take the liberty of messing it up for me. If I'm to go to
hell; I would rather it be upon my own recognizance than upon the
questionable integrity of a self-proclaimed one true church.

Around the world within the sphere of Christianity, there is one source of
revelation upon which we all pretty much agree is divinely inspired; and
that's the Holy Bible. It is the universal handbook for all Christians of every
denomination. So then, if Rome can't make its case from the Bible-- from
the universally accepted Christian handbook --then I am not willing to
permit Rome to risk my future upon data from questionable sources of
revelation.

The abuse of power that I see in Rome is really no different than the abuse
of power prevalent in Christ's day. Jewish religious leaders had a bad habit
of enforcing church-made traditions with the negative effect of making Old
Testament Judaism more strict, and more cumbersome than it really is.
Rome's so-called Apostolic Traditions, invented in Councils like Nicaea 1-2,
Constantinople 1-2-3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1-2-3-4-5, Lyons 1-2,
Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican 1-2, have been just as
effective as Judaism's traditions in making Christianity more strict, and more
cumbersome than it really is while at the same time embellishing the Bible
with unscriptural myths.

Christ often clashed with his religion's authorities over their traditions; some
of which actually nullified God-given Scripture (e.g. Matt 15:3, Mark 7:7-9,
Mark 7:13).

According to Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42, Christ isn't totally against
traditions just so long as they don't circumvent, replace, repeal, clash with,
marginalize, nor nullify the Bible.

For example: Christ drank wine at his final Passover meal. That element isn't
stipulated in God's instructions as per the 12th chapter of Exodus. Passover
wine is rabbi-given rather than God-given. But Christ went along with it
anyway because the tradition is quite harmless; viz: it neither circumvents,
replaces, repeals, clashes with, marginalizes, nor nullifies Passover's God
given instructions.

Q: What about 2Thss 3:6 . . Now we command you, brethren, in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

A: Unless Christians stick to the New Testament as the "tradition which he
received of us" they are vulnerable to deception.

†. Eph 4:14-15 . .Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing
our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something
different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound
like the truth.

†. 1Tim 1:3-4 . . As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in
Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines
any longer nor to devote themselves to myths

†. 1Tim 4:7 . . Have nothing to do with Godless myths and old wives' tales

OBJECTION: You still didn't answer 2Thss 2:15 . .Therefore, brethren, stand
fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or
our epistle.

RESPONSE: The New Testament's manuscripts were obviously incomplete
when Paul penned his second letter to the Thessalonian believers; and in the
really early days of Christianity, the primary source of New Testament
teaching wasn't from books at all, but was totally via word of mouth; viz:
itinerant evangelism.

No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends
as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down
in writing, authored by not only Paul and Silvanus, but also by Peter, James,
John, and Jude too: as those men all preached a unified, homogenous,
harmonious message (cf. Gal 1:15-2:9, 2Pet 3:15-16). And whatever's
supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human
error, private ambition, bias, and a fertile imagination.

If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking
engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth.
Until that happens, I will obey his command to keep a strong grip on the
traditions he and his associates taught by letter rather than what a modern
hierarchy claims they taught by mouth; and I would advise everyone to do
the same.

====================================

 

[epostle1]

Sorry, but you haven't a clue what Sacred Tradition is. Tradition was as important to the Jews as the written word but you don't misrepresent them.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

The problem is, many non-Catholic Christians don't want to see it or are kept from seeing it. I am convinced there is a conspiracy of censorship of a body of knowledge that is hidden from many Christians. 90% of non-Catholics I encounter on the internet have no clue as to who compiled the books of the Bible. It was the Catholic Church. The above list of beliefs are not Catholic inventions, they come to us from the Apostles. The Catholic Church is consistent and historical and has never changed the essence of any tradition (including the Tradition of the Bible) since the earliest days of Christianity. Doctrines develop, but never change and I challenge anyone to give the evidence that shows otherwise.

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.

In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.

There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.

When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this -- essays, sermons, writings of some sort. But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.

This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[epostle1]

TRADITION TEST QUESTIONS​

​

TRADITION
(in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Matthew 15:2-4

1) Which one of the following is correct, in the light of the above verses?

A) Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word.
B.) Jesus condemns all human traditions.
C) Jesus condemns the Pharisees for inventing false traditions that transgressed the Commandments.

2) Which of the following oral traditions that the Apostles taught are not found in the Old Testament?

A) Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
B. ) Matthew 23:2-3 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
C) 1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
D) All of the above.

3) Which of the following are oral traditions that the Apostles taught that are found in the Gospels or the Old Testament?

A) Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
B. Eph.5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."
C) Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets – 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated --
D) Jude 14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
E) none of the above are found anywhere in the Gospels or the Old Testament

4. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)
A) it's written on the top of the page
B.oral Tradition, reflected in the Early Church Fathers writings
C) bible scholars can prove it

5) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
A) The Gospels
B. The Epistles
C) Revelation
D) nowhere

13. True or False: Jesus told all His apostles to write things down.

14. If the authors of the New Testament believed in Sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9:14-15)?
A) once its written, its no longer tradition
B. oral Tradition is part of Divine Revelation and just as authoritive

16. Some Christians claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them that to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?

A) Jesus could not have condemned all oral tradition, just the ones (He said "your traditions") that violated God's word, not the Sacred Traditions that the Jews properly followed
B. the scribes and Pharisees were pure, true Christians, and Jesus was telling his listeners to follow their example.
C) Jesus was saying that the corruption of people with authority had no bearing on the necessity of obedience, which is pleasing to God.
D) "Moses' seat" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament, so Jesus was reading from the New Testament
E) A and C

17. True or False: God's Word is restricted only to what is written down.

19. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

A) on the authority of the publisher
B. on the authority of the Church who set strict principles for the canonization of scripture
C) Luke was a clone of Paul

 

[IanLC]

-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi-retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true religion. Some Catholics see red whenever
the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some Catholics see
criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as hatred for
Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is an authority in all matters
pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and read it. A
co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968 suggested
that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is an authority in
all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew what he
was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome or do I switch to following the Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as an
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice and due to my trust
in Jesus Christ's integrity— that he knew what he was talking about and
meant what he said.

Ironically, the Church sabotaged itself by instilling within me the justification
to defect. It's been said: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Give
him some fishing tackle, and you feed him forever. Well; the Church had
inadvertently given me some fishing tackle, so to speak, and here I am
today 47 years later still a Protestant. That's not forever, but it's a start.

http://cfbac.org/catholicism.htm

===========================================

Powerful testimony! We grow in grace! The Lord takes us from glory to glory! No one assembly (Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc.) has the infallible interpretation of the Truth. The Word of God stands though for all as the measuring meter!

"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." (2 Peter 3:18)
"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory,even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:18)

 

[Webers_Home]

-
A false premise like "Rome Has Spoken" renders Rome's followers vulnerable
to scotoma; which, if you've seen The Davinci Code, you know is a
subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's
propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated,
preconceived notions.

Scotoma is a serious condition. It causes people to disregard what Christ has
spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken. Curiously, they don't deliberately
disregard what Christ has spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken; they
actually do so without even thinking about it because scotoma is a mental
weakness rather then a weakness of the will.

For example: note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement below. It's in
the present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly
imbibe his blood, and correctly ingest his flesh, obtain eternal life right now,
rather than later in the next life after they pass on.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

The average pew warmer's mind will miss the grammatical tense of Christ's
statement; and without even thinking push the possession of eternal life into
the future because the pew warmer has had it drilled into their head ever
since catechism that the afterlife is where people obtain eternal life; and
there is no use in debating this issue with them because their belief is a
deep-seated, preconceived notion that will resist any and all reasoning to the
contrary no matter how well presented.

Here's another example:

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Webster's defines "never" as: not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not
under any condition

According to Christ's statement, the one possessing eternal life will never be
condemned for their sins; which means they are guaranteed to persevere to
the end. Ironically, the Church severely disciplines people who believe such
things.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he
will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift
of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a
special revelation, let him be anathema.

I sincerely believe that Christ's statements qualify as special revelations.
Rome doesn't agree? Well all I can say is: shame on Rome.

†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's
Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

†. John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who
does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on
him.

====================================

 

[epostle1]

Webers_Home, on 19 Jul 2015 - 8:35 PM, said:

-

My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

What does the Bible say about dishonoring your parents?

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi-retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice.

The bible as a sole authority is an unbiblical tradition of men, not remotely Catholic. Your testimony is phony.

It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true religion. Some Catholics see red whenever
the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some Catholics see
criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as hatred for
Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

You seem to have it now, with one misrepresentation after another.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is an authority in all matters
pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and read it.

I suppose you never heard or read along with, all the Bible readings at Mass either. This is why I don't believe you were a practicing Catholic.

A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968 suggested
that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

If you were a practicing Catholic, you could have got a free Bible from the priest.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is an authority in
all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew what he
was talking about and meant what he said.

Where do you think the Bible came from? Did it fall out of the sky?

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome or do I switch to following the Holy Bible?

Who told you "Rome" contradicts the Holy Bible? Jackkk Chickkk?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as an
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice and due to my trust
in Jesus Christ's integrity— that he knew what he was talking about and
meant what he said.

"the Holy Bible as an authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice" is not found anywhere in the Bible, it's a man made invention.

 

[epostle1]

-

A false premise like "Rome Has Spoken" renders Rome's followers vulnerable
to scotoma; which, if you've seen The Davinci Code, you know is a
subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's
propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated,
preconceived notions.

You got your Catholic knowledge from the Duh Vinci Code? That explains everything.
Cracking The Da Vinci Code

Scotoma is a serious condition. It causes people to disregard what Christ hasspoken in favor of what Rome has spoken. Curiously, they don't deliberatelydisregard what Christ has spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken; they actually do so without even thinking about it because scotoma is a mentalweakness rather then a weakness of the will.

Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

For example: note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement below. It's in
the present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly
imbibe his blood, and correctly ingest his flesh, obtain eternal life right now,
rather than later in the next life after they pass on.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

The average pew warmer's mind will miss the grammatical tense of Christ's
statement; and without even thinking push the possession of eternal life into
the future because the pew warmer has had it drilled into their head ever
since catechism that the afterlife is where people obtain eternal life; and
there is no use in debating this issue with them because their belief is a
deep-seated, preconceived notion that will resist any and all reasoning to the
contrary no matter how well presented. Here's another example:

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Webster's defines "never" as: not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not
under any condition

According to Christ's statement, the one possessing eternal life will never be
condemned for their sins; which means they are guaranteed to persevere to
the end. Ironically, the Church severely disciplines people who believe such
things.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he
will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift
of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a
special revelation, let him be anathema.

This is the second time you have taken Trent out of context.

I sincerely believe that Christ's statements qualify as special revelations.
Rome doesn't agree? Well all I can say is: shame on Rome.

Because of your scotoma on Catholic soteriology. You should do some reading so you won't look so foolish.
_________________________________________________________________


Phillip Johnson is the Executive Director of popular expositor John MacArthur's Grace to You radio and tape ministry, and oversees extensive theological web pages, including the Hall of Church History. The following dialogue took place on the public Theology List. Phillip's words will be in green. Dave Armstrong, Catholic apologist, in black.

I'd like you to show me where the Catechism of the Catholic Church says anything about God securing our cooperation by grace.

Gladly: #1989, 1992-1993, 1996, 1998-2003, 2007-2010, 2018, 2022-2023, 2025-2027, pp. 482-487, 489-490.

#1996 reads:
Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

#2027 reads:
No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion . . .

But, Dave, not one of those passages teaches that God secures the sinner's cooperation.

I disagree (what else is new?). I think #1996, 1998, and 2001 in particular do precisely that, and more, since they speak of eternal life as a gift of God, entirely unearned by man apart from God. The immediate question above had to do with God securing our cooperation, not salvation, and I answered it, 25 times. If you meant "secure our salvation" (a different proposition), then -- in my humble opinion -- you should have made that more clear.

Read my post again. I did not merely ask you to cite where the Catechism refers to divine grace. I asked you to show me where it describes grace as something that actually secures either 1) a positive response from the sinner, or 2) ultimate salvation for anyone.

In the immediate context above, you referred to the sinner's cooperation, not "ultimate salvation." In fact, we Catholics do hold that God elects persons to eternal salvation. Right now in my debate with [a Calvinist], you'll note that he often refers to the Thomist position on predestination as very similar to his own Calvinist position (at least where the elect are concerned, I would hasten to add).

. . . and that does not demonstrate what I asked for. It doesn't even come close. Note that it describes grace as "help." So it's saying grace is something that assists the willing sinner. This does not suggest that grace secures anyone's willingness.

The Catechism wisely refrains from elaborate expositions of predestination. Catechisms are not systematic theologies. They are written for laymen attempting to understand and live out Catholic Christianity, not philosophers, theologians, or impractical people like us who have nothing better to do than sit around and discuss stuff like supralapsarianism, transubstantiation, and antidisestablishmentarianism. Even so, I think the three citations above -- rightly understood -- provide the stricter answer you are looking for.

Even semi-Pelagians believe that grace is a necessary aspect of salvation. No one has disputed that Roman Catholicism believes that much.

Not even Jack Chick or Tony Alamo et al?

But, Dave, the simple fact is that Rome does not believe grace actually secures the salvation, or even the willingness, of anyone.

And Bah humbug!!!!!!!!!!!! Patent falsehoods . . .

Indeed, this is a major point on which Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Semi-Pelagians, and Arminians all agree against the Reformation: all these views deny that God has any control whatsoever in gaining the sinner's cooperation and assent. Instead, conversion is left to "free will." Therefore your God is helpless to save someone who is determined to pursue sin and rebellion.

This is abysmally ignorant and astonishing in one so learned and otherwise eloquent. Aside from the citations above, anyone can readily verify the outrageous falsity of these charges (at least with respect to Catholicism), by reading the following chapters from the Decree on Justification from the Council of Trent: 3, 5, 7, 8, and also the Canons 1-3. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott states that the following proposition must be believed by all orthodox Catholics (a de fide dogma):
GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS.
Ott says that the doctrinal definitions of Trent presuppose this.

Well, I urge anyone who really thinks I might be wrong to read those documents and see for yourself that there is nothing here to suggest that grace actually secures a positive response from the sinner. The grace described by Trent cannot ensure even the repentant sinner's ultimate salvation. On the contrary, if you read the whole document, you will note that the Decree on Justification (chap. 15) teaches that those who receive grace can lose it by committing a mortal sin.

Of course. Just as in Calvinism, someone who goes to hell (due to mortal sin, in Catholicism) is obviously not among the elect (but even so, we can't know that for sure, as we don't know the eternal destiny of anyone -- excepting instances such as Elijah). Calvinists have no more "assurance" than we do because when someone falls away, you simply say that proves he was not divinely elected. We simply can't know with certitude who is to be saved, and who damned, whatever the deluded self-confident claims are to the contrary. It reduces to an epistemological, not theological, problem. Believers in both parties, however, can certainly have a very high degree of assurance of being in right relation to God, especially if they are living righteous, upright lives, which is a sign of election in both systems.

[Snip stuff on Catholicism and predestination. I'll leave all that to someone else.]

Very convenient for you! This is precisely what is most relevant to the discussion, and you want to "leave all that to someone else." I assume, then, that you'll "leave" the response to my predestination post to "someone else" too?

You have in effect claimed that the Council of Trent affirmed the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistable [sic] Grace.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. But my predestination post ought to be of great comfort and use to you, when you see how similar we really are, just as I have been pleasantly surprised about Calvinism, the more I learn about it, from people who have been patient enough to explain it carefully.

My God [note the implication that Catholics, and even Arminian Protestants, worship a different God] on the other hand, can even effect the total turnaround of someone like Saul of Tarsus--or worse yet, Phillip Johnson.

Mine, too. We worship the same Lord.

I believe that Roman Catholicism, since Trent, has so seriously corrupted the doctrine of justification that it does not deserve to be regarded as authentic Christianity (cf. Gal. 1:8-9). I deplore Catholic doctrine, just as I deplore Mormon doctrine.

Then you are one confused individual indeed. This is self-defeating and ludicrously incoherent and thus unworthy to be adhered to by any educated Protestant.

That does not mean I dislike Roman Catholics, any more than it means I dislike Mormons. I have great love and concern for people trapped in the darkness of both systems.

Yes, your love, affection, and concern for me is evident in your every post to me! They are so gracious, charitable, conciliatory, etc. . . .

[this was obviously sarcasm -- his letters were stock full of bitter ad hominem attacks]

And for that very reason I would no more assume a Roman Catholic is a brother or sister in Christ than I would make such an assumption about a Socinian [non-trinitarian] "Protestant," a gnostic new-age "Christian," or anyone else who denies that Christ's righteousness alone is the sole and sufficient ground of our justification.

What about John Wesley, or C.S. Lewis, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Soren Kierkegaard? Are they equally as suspect in your eyes, on the same grounds? Mother Teresa and St. Francis of Assisi quite possibly in hell . . . ? This is so absurdly asinine, one wonders how to respond. I haven't figured it out yet, obviously so in my dealings with you!

I believe Romans 4:4-5 makes a crystal-clear dichotomy: "To the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." Verse 4 describes those who are working toward ultimate justification. Verse 5 contrasts them with true Christians, who refuse to work for any part of their justification -- but instead they rest their whole confidence on a righteousness that is imputed to them. (See also Phil. 3:7-9.) I'll leave it to you to declare which category you fit into.

I'm in the category of those who "work out" their "own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [me], both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13 -- NRSV; cf. Mt 5:20, 7:16-27, 16:27, Lk 14:13-14, Acts 6:7, 10:31,35, Rom 1:5, 2:5-13, 6:17, 10:16, 15:18-19, 16:25-6, 1 Cor 3:8-9,13, 4:5, 15:10,58, 2 Cor 5:10, Gal 5:6, 6:7-9, Eph 2:8-10, Col 3:23-25, 1 Thess 1:3, 2 Thess 1:8,11, 1 Tim 6:18-19, Titus 1:15-16, 3:5-8, Heb 11:8, Jas 1:22-27, 2:14-26[cf. Ps 106:30-31], 1 Pet 1:2,17, 2 Pet 1:10, Rev 22:12).

You think "works," even those wholly wrought by God's enabling grace, have nothing to do with justification and salvation. I think the Bible (per the above evidences) perspicuously teaches otherwise, which is why sola fide was unknown, according to Norman Geisler, between the times of Paul and Luther.


Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. 1John 4:1 . .Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be
in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first
have access to an independent, non proprietary source of truth with which
all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an impossibility
for rank and file pew warmers because they depend entirely upon the
integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth-- a magisterium composed of
human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits
whom Catholics are supposed to try; but have no independent, non
proprietary means to do so.

What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of
dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark
beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a
Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file
that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own,
they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's
own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is
inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against
a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other
words: Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy
Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer
is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string
pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to
validate except by taking its own word for it.

Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any
doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with
Tradition.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone.

To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the
consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and
integrity.

A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's
"Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily
persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience
while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was
performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were
giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to
strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The
registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them
(who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let
out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into
tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain.
Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and
some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like
souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they
were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric
shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer
questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because
of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the
switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody
should die during the experiment.

When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good
conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and
children; they simply answered: You can't blame any of us for that; we
were only following orders.

It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were
Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and
partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish
infants-- thrown out of hospital windows --in midair on their bayonets.

There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason
why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly
suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their
reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a
Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do.
And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the
rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God
possibly condemn anybody for that?

But it's not going to work that way at the Great White Throne event depicted
at Rev 20:11-15. Nobody but nobody is going to pass the buck. If an
otherwise intelligent pew warmer foolishly chooses to let others do their own
thinking for them, then they will perish in a fool's death even if their own
personal IQ is 200 or better.

†. Luke 6:39 . .Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the
ditch?

====================================

 

[epostle1]

Catholics don't need the Magisterium to tell us that abortion is murder.

-
†. 1John 4:1 . .Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be
in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first
have access to an independent, non proprietary source of truth with which
all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an impossibility
for rank and file pew warmers because they depend entirely upon the
integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth-- a magisterium composed of
human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits
whom Catholics are supposed to try; but have no independent, non
proprietary means to do so.

What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of
dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark
beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a
Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file
that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own,
they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's
own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is
inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against
a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other
words: Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy
Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer
is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string
pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to
validate except by taking its own word for it.

Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any
doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with
Tradition.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to
the living teaching office of the Church alone.

To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the
consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and
integrity.

A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's
"Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily
persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience
while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was
performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were
giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to
strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The
registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them
(who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let
out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into
tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain.
Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and
some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like
souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they
were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric
shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer
questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because
of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the
switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody
should die during the experiment.

When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good
conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and
children; they simply answered: You can't blame any of us for that; we
were only following orders.

It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were
Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and
partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish
infants-- thrown out of hospital windows --in midair on their bayonets.

There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason
why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly
suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their
reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a
Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do.
And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the
rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God
possibly condemn anybody for that?

But it's not going to work that way at the Great White Throne event depicted
at Rev 20:11-15. Nobody but nobody is going to pass the buck. If an
otherwise intelligent pew warmer foolishly chooses to let others do their own
thinking for them, then they will perish in a fool's death even if their own
personal IQ is 200 or better.

†. Luke 6:39 . .Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the
ditch?

====================================

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do."
ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN