Monday, June 08, 2009

Pagan Catholic Church

125 comments:

Janelle said...

In this video you are proposing questions as answers, and seem to think that the questions themselves provide definitive proof that Catholics are wrong on most points of their faith. As a happily devout Catholic, I am annoyed that you think I am lacking the truth, that I am lacking salvation, or that I am lacking God and a relationship with him.

I would like to answer your questions, but as you seem to have many I will pick one or two and answer them as I am able.

One cannot have Jesus as the center of their faith, as I do, and be a pagan. Jesus is the center of my life, and Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life for all who believe in Him. No true Catholic would answer any differently.

By the way, what exactly is your definition of a pagan? A believer in polytheism? A non-christian? A heretic? I don't think you have any basis for calling Catholics pagan, based on what I know of the meaning of the word, but I would like to know why you are doing so.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Having Got 2 copies of the Catholic Catechism and the Conciliar documents to vatican II Vol 1 and Vol 2

This is what I question

CATHOLIC OR HELL

Catholic doctrine teaches that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Catholic Catechism, par. 870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter [i.e., the pope] and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines'(LG 8).

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Catholic Catechism, par. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5.]

This isn't some five-hundred year-old "outdated" teaching. My copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a copy of the signature of Pope John-Paul II "Given October 11, 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate." (emphasis added)

THIS HAS BEEN THE CATHOLIC POSITION ALL ALONG:

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

1) "The holy universal Church proclaims that God cannot truly be worshipped save within herself, and asserts that all they who are without her pale shall never be saved."
Pope Gregory the Great 540-604 A.D.

2) "The Church is like the Ark of Noah, outside of which nobody can be saved."
St. Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274 A.D.

3) "That there is one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled to believe and to hold, prompted by divine faith, and we do believe this firmly and confess it simply, outside of which there can be no salvation, or remission of sins…."
Pope Boniface VIII 1235-1303 A.D., became Pope in 1294

4) "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Pope Pius IX 1792-1878 A.D., became Pope in 1846, convened the first Vatican Council in 1869, which enunciated the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

5) "We believe the Church is necessary for salvation because Christ, who is the sole mediator and exclusive way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. We must always remember the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation, is open to no one outside the Catholic Church."
Pope Paul VI 1897-1978 A.D. became Pope in 1963

6) "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."
Vatican II 1965


Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

"I'm Catholic, and I just don't believe that only Roman Catholics will go to Heaven."

Congratulations! All religions that consider themselves "Christian" consider you a heretic. Catholicism considers you a heretic because you don't accept this major Catholic doctrine, and the other religions consider you a heretic because you accept Catholicism.

It is important to understand that "Catholic doctrine", "Catholic teachings", "Methodist doctrine", "Calvinist doctrine", etc., are not about the personal beliefs of a few individuals. Society is affected by groups acting as a group, not by isolated individuals (except, of course, in rare cases involving assassinations). Even Jesus would have had virtually no effect on human society if He had not gathered around Him a group of followers who continued to spread His teachings.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

It is well-known and well-documented that the Church of Rome has little tolerance for dissent and moves to take dissenters out of positions of influence.

MISS A MASS, BURN IN HELL

Around 1000 A.D., attendance at Catholic Mass was made mandatory under penalty of mortal sin. In other words, -- according to the Roman Catholic Church -- if anyone misses just one CATHOLIC Mass (each Sunday and "holy days of obligation" such as Christmas) and does not have that sin forgiven by a Catholic Priest, that person (which includes all Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Messianic Jews) will spend forever in Hell.

MOSLEMS WILL BE SAVED

Catholic doctrine teaches that Muslims can be saved even though they deny the crucifixion and deity of Jesus Christ.

Catholic Catechism, par. 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.' [LG 16; cf. NA 3.]

Koran Sura (Chapter) 4 verse 157 "But they killed him [Christ] not nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them. They killed him not. Nay, God raised him up unto himself."

(Islam teaches that God transfigured someone else to look like Jesus and that person died on the Cross, not Jesus. Then, God raised Jesus the prophet and apostle bodily into heaven and said "You told people you are My Son. You lied! Why did you do this?" Jesus the prophet repented and God forgave him. In the last days, the final great Muslim prophet will come with Jesus, and this repentant Jesus will admit to people that he lied and is not the Messiah, that this final prophet is the Messiah.)

Koran Sura 5 verse 78 "Christ, the Son of Mary, was no more than an apostle."

Koran Sura 5 verse 75 "They do blaspheme who say God is Christ, the Son of Mary."

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Acts 4:11-12 [11] He is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone [cornerstone of a building]." [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

John 5:22-23 [22] Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, [23] that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

As these verses indicate, the Koran, the scripture of Islam teaches and Moslems believe that Jesus Christ is not God. Sadly, this means that, like all others who don't believe in the deity of Christ, all Moslems who believe the teachings of their religion are condemned to eternal punishment. Many people, both Christian and non-Christian, find this teaching offensive and call Christians bigots, prejudiced, and/or narrow-minded. The Christian belief is based on the teachings of the Bible, not on personal likes or dislikes. The vast majority of Moslems are nice, decent, kind, hard-working people. No true Christian takes pleasure or joy in the thought of BILLIONS of people being punished for ETERNITY, but that is exactly what the New Testament says will happen. But the official Catechism of the Catholic Church denies this biblical teaching.


"Wait a minute! First you say that Catholic doctrine teaches the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, then you say that Catholic doctrine teaches that Muslims will be saved, even though they aren't members of the Catholic Church! That doesn't make sense!"

Hey, I'm not Catholic! I claim they're wrong!

HELL IMMEDIATELY

Catholic doctrine teaches that the lost go to Hell immediately upon death.

Catholic Catechism, par. 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' [Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG # 12.] The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

According to the Bible, nobody is in Hell yet. The unsaved dead are held in Hades. Hell won't be "open for business" until the Second Coming, when Christ returns to Earth to stop the Battle of Armageddon. At that time the Beast and the False Prophet will be thrown alive into the Lake of Fire and Satan will be imprisoned in the Abyss. Then Christ will rule the Millennial Kingdom from Jerusalem for a thousand years. At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released and will mislead many into rebelling, and Jesus will destroy the rebels. Then Jesus will resurrect all unbelievers and judge them at the Great White Throne Judgment. Those whose names are not found in the Book of Life will be thrown alive into the Lake of Fire.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Note: It is important to draw a technical distinction in terminology. Some versions translate the Greek word as "Hell" and others translate it as "Hades". Theologians and translators who consider the prejudgment prison to be "Hades" consider the term "Lake of Fire" to be synonymous with "Hell". Theologians and translators who consider the prejudgment prison to be "Hell" call the Lake of Fire the Lake of Fire. When I say "nobody is in Hell yet" I mean nobody is in the place of eternal fire.

See 'Hell', 'Hades' and 'the Lake of Fire'.

Revelation 1:17-18 [17] When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. [18] I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

Revelation 19:20 But the beast [the Antichrist] was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Revelation 20:11-15 [11] Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. [12] And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. [13] The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. [14] Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. [15] If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Catholic doctrine teaches that when the priest blesses the bread and wine, they are miraculously transformed into the actual body and the actual blood of Jesus Christ.

Catholic Catechism, par. 1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as 'the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.' [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 73, 3c.] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.' [Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.] 'This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.' [Paul VI, MF 39.]

Catholic doctrine demands that believers must worship the Eucharist.

Catholic Catechism, par. 1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. 'The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.' [Paul VI, MF 56.]

Catholic doctrine teaches that by the actions of the priest the bread and wine become the actual body and the actual blood of Jesus Christ. At Mass, the priest blesses the bread. He then holds it up to the congregation and declares "The body of Christ." The congregation responds "Amen." He then continues, blesses the wine, holds it up to the congregation and declares "The blood of Christ." Again, the congregation responds "Amen." The Catholic Church claims that this is a miracle called transubstantiation.

In fact, this same alleged miracle was taught by the ancient Egyptian religion that worshiped the pagan god Osiris. See The Mystery of the Eucharist by former Roman Catholic priest, and now Baptist minister Dr. Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D. The article includes Canons from the Council of Trent.

In the Bible there isn't even one miracle that lacked visible , physical evidence. The Bible does not say "Jesus called 'Lazarus, come out.' Lazarus did not come out. Nothing happened. However, everyone still realized Lazarus had been raised from the dead." The Bible does not say "Jesus said to the little girl 'Talitha koum.' The little girl did not rise up. Nothing happened. However, everyone still realized she had been raised from the dead."

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

INFALLIBILITY

Catholic doctrine teaches that anyone who does not accept the pronouncements of the Pope hates Christ, is not a believer and will not be saved.

Catholic Catechism, par. 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.'[LG 23.] 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.' [LG 22; cf. CD 2,9.]


Catholic Catechism, par. 891 'The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council. [LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,' [DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' [LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [Cf. LG 25.]

Regarding alleged papal infallibility, it is extremely important to realize three things:

1.

The Catholic Church did not claim papal infallibility until 1870, at the First Vatican Council.
2.

Infallibility was declared by the Council, not by the Pope or by some other alleged divine revelation.
3.

The Council was not unanimous -- some members did not believe papal teachings are infallible!

Catholic doctrine teaches that whoever does not follow Catholic bishops despises Christ.

Catholic Catechism, par. 862 'Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.'[LG 20 # 2.] Hence the Church teaches that 'the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.'[LG 20 # 2.]

Again, the Roman Catholic Church considers the term "the Church" to mean only those who follow the Pope.

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


The Catholic Church claims that God continues to give new Scripture, in the form of Catholic pronouncements.

See above regarding the teachings of the Pope and Catholic bishops.

The New Testament is the final revelation of God regarding things man needs to know to be saved:

Jude 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

A FINAL QUESTION

Malachi 3:6a "I the Lord do not change."

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

If God doesn't change, and the Catholic pronouncements are from God, then why do they contradict the Bible ???

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Plus the video was not made by me.

Janelle said...

After I commented I realized the video may not have been made by you. Nevertheless...

You are writing WAY too much at once. Please take one thing at a time!

First off: "Catholic doctrine teaches that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation." Putting it that way does not do justice to the fullness of the Catholic understanding of this. You quote many Catholic sources that help to flesh it out, but you don't seem to understand what you quote or how they serve to explain the doctrine.

I'd like you to tell me specifically what your problem is with this teaching, that's not been clear in what you've said. Please be concise.

Janelle said...

By the way, what's your name? Who am I talking with?

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

My name is Miguel Hayworth you can goto my profile for that, I am quoting directly from Catholic Catechism, par. 846 also the popes have taught it.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means "Outside the Church there is no salvation".

"That there is one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled to believe and to hold, prompted by divine faith, and we do believe this firmly and confess it simply, outside of which there can be no salvation, or remission of sins…." Pope Boniface VIII 1235-1303 A.D., became Pope in 1294

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noe, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: "It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."

Pope Pelagius II (578-590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church" (Denzinger, 469).

Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."

Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: "I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved" (Denzinger 792).

Pope Clement VI, Letter Super Quibusdam (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: "In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell."

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Pope Leo XII (1823-1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'"

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), "You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation."

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ."

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864:,Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane:, Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum:

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Pope Pius XI (1922-1939),Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."

all say the same, their is no salvation out side the RCC The Church's understanding of the significance of the phrase :"Outside the Church there is no salvation" is expressed in its Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, 851

Janelle said...

Hi Miguel,
I'd rather you not cite extensive quotes. But since you have posted them, what I want is a summary of how these conflict with your point of view, and in your own words.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Problems with this teachings is it goes against what Christ said, that salvation comes from being born again, through faith alone. Works is the end result of faith.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

also Catholic doctrine teaches Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ's work on the Cross was not sufficient to fully pay for our sins.

Catholic Catechism, par. 1030, Catholic Catechism, par. 1032,
Catholic Catechism, par. 1129

Hebrews 10:11-18 [11] Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [12] But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. [13] Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, [14] because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. [15] The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: [16] "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." [17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Janelle said...

Yes, the book of James says that faith without works is dead. Catholics do not believe that works alone are necessary for salvation, but that faith is the crucial starting point which grows into a mature faith and is made real and concrete through works of love.

Janelle said...

Perhaps you are misreading it, but this quote from the Catechism does not say that. In fact, it says that Christ's work on the cross WAS indeed fully sufficient to pay for our sins.

This quote from above, for example:

"because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."

And the Mass does not contradict this, either.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

works is the end result of faith, but salvation is by faith alone, works comes as a result of being saved..

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

I was also quoting hebrews not the Catholic Teaching of the Catechism

The last verse.

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Plus Catholic doctrine teaches Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ's work on the Cross was not sufficient to fully pay for our sins.

Please read

Catholic Catechism, par. 1030, Catholic Catechism, par. 1032,
Catholic Catechism, par. 1129

www.vatican.va to get the quotes if you dont have the catechism

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

You may also say. "Catholics do not believe that works alone are necessary for salvation, but that faith is the crucial starting point which grows into a mature faith and is made real and concrete through works of love."

Good for catholics but the Catholic teaching is clear on the issue that it teaches saved by works

Please refare to canon law, Canon 11, Canon 12, Canon 24, Canon 30, Canon 32.

Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works. You must pay the debt of sins by your penance and your purgatorial sufferings. That is Rome's salvation by works!

Janelle said...

Ah, I see, you were quoting Hebrews.

"works is the end result of faith, but salvation is by faith alone, works comes as a result of being saved"

This is true, because it's God's grace working in us and through us in both our faith and the works we do.

Thanks, I have the Cathechism at home but I am not home at the moment.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Please look up the references I gave you when you get home.

Janelle said...

So, Cathechism 1030: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."

This is about holiness, not salvation. We must be holy to enter heaven, and it is all God's doing, Him working in us to make that happen - this purification must take place in us at some point. Depending on how well we cooperate with Him in our life on earth, we may still be in need of it after we die. That's what this is saying.

Janelle said...

I do not have a copy of Canon Law at home, could you provide the actual quotations from those you refer to?

Janelle said...

And there is a copy of the Catechism online, I am referring to that.

Janelle said...

You say: "You must merit grace and eternal life by your works. You must pay the debt of sins by your penance and your purgatorial sufferings. That is Rome's salvation by works!"

We are saying faith AND works. NOT faith by works. You are misunderstanding complex and nuanced spirtual realities. I will try and explain them to you bit by bit.

Janelle said...

Here is the quote from the Catechism 1129 you referenced:

"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior."

All of the sacraments were instituted by Christ in His life and ministry. Faith in Him brings one to faith and membership in the Church He founded and in the Sacraments (concrete manifestations of spiritual realities), which are the most important ways in which He transmits His grace to us. Not the only ways, of course, but ways in which He has asked us to participate.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

To comment on your comment on Cathechism 1030: I dissagree The Roman Catholic Church does not teach its people to have confidence in the full forgiveness of their sins through the death of Christ alone. Nor are they taught that the righteousness of God accomplished by Jesus Christ is their permanent possession. The result is that the faithful Catholic is taught never to come to full assurance of salvation during their earthly life, for they are still capable of committing “mortal sin.” A Catholic's redemption is always dependent on their maintaining a faithfulness to the Church's doctrine and practice.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Thus Catholics are taught that when they die, if they have not committed mortal sins (and with the exception of the special class of believers they call “saints”), all go to the place the church calls purgatory. The Catechism states, "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death --------->they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven..."<-----------

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

"The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent" (Catechism 1030-1031). This concept of purgatory led to the unbiblical Catholic doctrine of prayers for the dead (Catechism 1032). Catholic believers are taught that "it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins" (Catechism 958).

Again contrary to Scripture.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

your comment on Canon Law,

Ok this is long, this is why I did not want to post it, but here it is

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema. (see note 1)

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works. You must pay the debt of sins by your penance and your purgatorial sufferings. That is Rome's salvation by works!

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

also Catechism 1129 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm#1129

St. Thomas sums up the various aspects of sacramental signs: "Therefore a sacrament is a sign that commemorates what precedes it - Christ's Passion; demonstrates what is accomplished in us through Christ's Passion - grace; and prefigures what that Passion pledges to us - future glory."58

States also sacraments as necessary for salvation again this is contrary to Hebrews I quoted.

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Janelle said...

Are these quotes online somewhere?

My initial check on the numbers you provide does not match the Code of Canon Law that is online.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Council of Trent.

http://www.theopedia.com/Council_of_Trent

Janelle said...

Now, what I think is providing the confusion on your part is that you seem to think your interpretation of the Bible trumps everything else. There is no other authority but scripture, is that what you believe?

That understanding of scripture is not self-evident, nor is it correct. But I will allow you to explain yourself first before I go any further.

By the way, even though you claim differently, none of the teachings of the Catholic Church contradict scripture.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

It is not my interpritation as the Bible is not open to that, but it stipulated about salvation is by Grace alone and not by works.

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God,
not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph 2:8-9)

Janelle said...

Regarding your comment on Catechism 1129 and the quote from St. Thomas (Aquinas? There are many St. Thomas's)....

That does not demonstrate a contradiction to that Hebrews verse. It is the SAME grace and salvation from Jesus Christ on the cross that operates throught the sacraments. Always has been that way, always will be.

Janelle said...

"For by grace you are saved through faith..." etc.

Of course. That is exactly what the Church teaches, that ALL salvation comes from the grace and love of God and from the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Any faith we have and likewise any works we do are completely and entirely dependent upon God for their existence and for their merit.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

your comment to Regarding your comment on Catechism 1129 and the quote from St. Thomas (Aquinas? There are many St. Thomas's)....

Actually it is on the Vactican.va site footnote at the bottom of Catechism 1129 please do read it, it was a copy and paste from vatican.va

again it does contridict Hebrews 11, simply because it teaches that saving grace is through the sacrements.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

"For by grace you are saved through faith..." etc.

Of course. That is exactly what the Church teaches, that ALL salvation comes from the grace and love of God and from the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Any faith we have and likewise any works we do are completely and entirely dependent upon God for their existence and for their merit.

it does not because it adds to it the works of salvation is through the sacrements.... its not a question of faith but weather you attend mass etc.

Janelle said...

No, it teaches that saving grace comes from God - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and this is effected through the sacraments.

You are isolating this one doctrine apart from a gargantuan amount of other Catholic teachings about faith and salvation. This needs to be looked at in conjunction with everything else. This one part is not wrong, but you are taking it somewhat out of context.

Janelle said...

Actually, you're taking it out of the context of the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, and as the Bride of Christ. Once you do that, of course this isn't going to make sense to you.

Janelle said...

Attending Mass is a particularly important expression of my faith and devotion. This is not adding to anything. Jesus asks us to participate in the salvation he has already won for us. Every time I attend Mass that is what happens.

What I trying to help you to understand is that the sacraments ARE the way in which Jesus makes his salvation present to the world. He became God incarnate! He wants His salvation to reach us through very concrete means. That is what the sacraments are all about.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

not really its just that the papercy has blinded you, for years you have been deceaved, nothing was taken out of context, the catechism does not co-inside scripture.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

their is a big diffrence between the Lords supper and the catholic mass, Council of Trent, Canon #1: If anyone shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist and shall say that He is only in it as a sign or in a figure, let him be anathema (cursed to hell)."

They differ on

Hebr. 10:10-12 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, ------> which can never take away sins:<---------- ------>But this man<--------, after he ------>had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,<-------- sat down on the right hand of God;

But if the liturgy does what Catholic doctrine teaches that it does, then Catholics are being asked to participate in an act forbidden by God,

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

both before the Law:

Gen. 9:3-4: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Under the Mosaic Law;

Lev. 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

And today in the New Testament age of grace:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Additionally, if the liturgy does what it says it does, then it consists of repeating the sacrifice of Calvary and undoing the effects of the resurrection of Jesus!

Hebr. 6:6-If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

John 19:34-But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1Cor. 15:50-Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Further more "transubstantiation." The Roman Catholic church teaches that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the consecrated wafer and wine are miraculously changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus in a process they call transubstantiation.

1413. By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.].--" Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC); (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

The centerpiece of the Catholic Mass is the Eucharistic sacrifice, a bloodless re-presentation of Christ's atonement on the cross. Or something like that. The Catholic priest, or "alter Christus," commands the Son of God to come down from Heaven and assume the physical characteristics of a cracker and a cup of wine, that He might be consumed by the priest and the faithful. Other studies offered by Christian scholars and myself have fully addressed the Jewish rejection of human sacrifice, cannibalism and the consumption of blood, all of which practices fly in the face of God's clear proscriptions. It is not my intention here to resurrect those arguments. Instead, I hope to examine how the early Christian commemoration of the Lord's Supper was corrupted into today's present Catholic practice.

Janelle said...

When I say out of context, I meant what I had written earlier... you are taking it out of the context of Jesus Christ and His Church. He founded this Church, and the Sacraments that are a part of this Church, and if you do not believe that there is not way you will believe anything the Church teaches.

The Papacy, as you put it, is called the Magisterium and is inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach correctly on matters of faith and morals. That and scripture constitute the foundations of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Oh, no one has "blinded" me, thank you very much, I can think for myself quite well.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

I am also trying to help you understand that you are in error when you say "sacraments ARE the way in which Jesus makes his salvation present to the world."

this is Unbiblical, Jesus alrady did it, we do not need sacraments in order to have Gods gift of salvation avalible to us.

Janelle said...

Hey, can we slow down??? You're going too fast!!

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Your comment "When I say out of context, I meant what I had written earlier... you are taking it out of the context of Jesus Christ and His Church. "

Not so your taking scriptures out of context the RCC is not Christ's church it is the pope's


"He founded this Church, and the Sacraments that are a part of this Church, and if you do not believe that there is not way you will believe anything the Church teaches."

acording to catholic teach it is peter not Christ who the church was built from, again peter never went to rome Paul did.

"The Papacy, as you put it, is called the Magisterium and is inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach correctly on matters of faith and morals."

The Papacy or the Magisterium as they address themselves have not correctly taught on matters of faith but deviated from faith.



" That and scripture constitute the foundations of the teachings of the Catholic Church."

How so, the Bible does not teach this that the Roman Catholic Church is the Holy Catholic Church.

"Oh, no one has "blinded" me, thank you very much, I can think for myself quite well. "

this is why it is called Decit because you dont know you are but you think you have truth when what the Church of Rome has given you is a counterfeit truth.

Janelle said...

Why is that unbiblical?

God is outside of time and space. And yet He entered time and space to become God made man - because He wanted to, because He wanted to be close to us in the flesh, conretely. Let me again say to you that the sacraments make His grace and salvation present in concrete ways. Yes, He can communicate His grace in any way He chooses, and He does do that frequently outside of the sacraments, but the sacraments are a particular way in which He wants to do that.

Janelle said...

By what authority do you say the Catholic Church is not Christ's church? How do YOU know this? The bible does not give you this information.

It is Peter the Church was built upon, but it is Christ who IS the Chruch. And, uh, sorry, but Peter died in Rome. It's historical evidence.

The truth can stand for itself; I am not afraid to continue this conversation.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

sure I will respectfully slow down, I will have to respond to your next comment tomorrow, but your coment regaurding.

Why is that unbiblical?

"God is outside of time and space. And yet He entered time and space to become God made man - because He wanted to, because He wanted to be close to us in the flesh, conretely. Let me again say to you that the sacraments make His grace and salvation present in concrete ways. Yes, He can communicate His grace in any way He chooses, and He does do that frequently outside of the sacraments, but the sacraments are a particular way in which He wants to do that."

Their is a simple answer to that, God would not go beyond what has already been written in the Bible, the mass goes beyond that, it is also true that God is not limerted, but God is not a lier he chooses to stay faithful to his word the Bible.

Janelle said...

But why would He not go beyond what is in the Bible? No, of course God does not limit Himself. I agree He is always faithful to His word, and that includes what is written in the Bile. But He is not contradicting Himself by anything He does that is extra-biblical, as you might call it. It is extra, but not extraneous. It's His extraordinary grace, His love and mercy unlimited.

Okay, we will continue this later. Blessings!!

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

very last comment Im glad your not giving the converstation up, you stated, "It is Peter the Church was built upon, but it is Christ who IS the Chruch. And, uh, sorry, but Peter died in Rome. It's historical evidence."

actually History says based on tradition not on evedence, this is not recorded in the Bible, actually the New Testiment tells us that Peter went to Antioch, Samaria, Joppa and Caesarea but not Rome.

If we then accept that 66 A.D. as the date of Pauls Martyrdom that would mean that Peter was in Rome from 41 A.D to 66 A.D But about 44 A.D he was in prison in Jurusalem (Acts 12). About 53 A.D he was in the council in Jurusalem, (Acts 15). About 53 A.D Paul Joined him in Antioch (Gal 2:11). About 58 A.D Paul Wrote his letter to the Romans, in which he sent greetings to twenty seven persons, but this does not mention Peter.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

In none of the church epistles written from Rome was Second Timothy. In it he says "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me" (4:16) Where was Peter if he was in Rome? In the Same epistle, just before his martyrdom Paul said "only Luke is with me" (4:11) Paul had written *(to) Rome, and his wrote from Rome, but he never mentioned Peter. Instead he wrote "Only Luke is with me".

From Scripture Peter was never in Rome, nor was he ever Bishop of Rome, he was never Pope.

Janelle said...

What I'm not comprehending is how you seem to render as untrue anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible, such as Peter being physically in the city of Rome.

- Your comment was that "peter never went to rome paul did"

The Bible does not record many instances of the missions of the apostles, only particular ones. Nothing is said about several of the apostles outside of the four gospels. For example, there is historical evidence that St. Thomas traveled to India and evangelized there. This, of course, is nowhere in the Bible. But does that mean it never happened? What we have to rely on is historical evidence. In discovering something about history, even the Church's history, historical factual evidence is relied upon to determine that something happened. So for the early church, if it is not in Bible, in your estimation it is nonexistent or wrong? But why?

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

- And in response to this comment of yours above: "Additionally, if the liturgy does what it says it does, then it consists of repeating the sacrifice of Calvary and undoing the effects of the resurrection of Jesus!"

Well, the word "repeating" is not the proper way of thinking about it. What actually happens is that the sacrifice of Calvary is *made present* to us now. Nothing is repeated. The same event - the Paschal Mystery, as we call it, which is His passion, death and resurrection - that same event is what we enter into every time Mass is celebrated.

A priest, Fr. Mario Romero, puts it this way...
"It was done once by Jesus 2,000 years ago but is made present to Christians throughout the ages as a way to continually renew our covenant with Jesus."

Janelle said...

A little more in regards to Peter - his death is said to have been around A.D. 64 or A.D. 67, in the city of Rome during emperor Nero's persecution of Christians. This comes from numerous written historical sources (although the exact year of his death remains uncertain). The question of Peter ever being in Rome at all is interesting, because 1Peter 5:13 says "The Church which is at Babylon.... greets you". Babylon was a code-word used by Christians to refer to the city of Rome (Pagan Rome - the Rome of the Roman Empire was what you would properly call pagan).

Your comment above about Peter being in Jerusalem does not preclude him from being based in Rome and traveling to Jerusalem or other places for a pastoral visit or a council.

He may not have been called the Pope or even the Bishop of Rome during his lifetime, but it is clear that Peter was recognized as the spiritual and administrative leader of the early Christians. There are volumes of books, articles and encyclicals written by other members of the early Church that all point to Peter as the head of it.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Concerning Peter being in Rome. The Bible records Paul's comments concerning his time in Rome. Paul clearly states, to Timothy, that the only other support that he had was from Luke, He states that ONLY Luke was there. (2Ti 4:11) If Peter was there then Paul was a liar and the Scripture is untrue.

Using the term "Repeating" was probably not the best description, the more accurate term would be "Re-presentation." The doctrine of the Vatican is that the sascrifice of Christ is being presented once more:

--------->..... the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256)

---->Catholic Catechism, par. 1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

The New Testament states CLEARLY that Christs sacrifice can NEVER be repeated in any sense. It was a ONCE and FOR ALL sacrifice.
(Hebrews 7:27)

In fact the writer to the Hebrews makes the comparison of Christ's sacrifice with that of the priests. The priests make a continual repetition of the scrifice whereas Christ did it ONLY once.

Faith in what Christ accomplished at Calvary is what saves. It is what He accomplished 2000 years ago that reconciles us with the Father, not the Mass. The Bible narrative places this fully within the context of the Jewish Passover. Christ died at Passover, the "Last Supper" was actually a Passover Seder that the Lord celebrated with His Apostles. The bread of the Seder was the Matzoh the wine was the "Yayim." Up until this point whenever they ate and drank the bread andc wine it was done in rememberence of Moses and the Exodus. Christ stated that from then on it was to be done in REMEMBRANCE of Him (1Cor 11:24-25)

The whole idea is to see the truth of the significance of the Passover, not as it was under the Law but as it would be finally revealed in Him.(1Cor 5:7)

Faith is about believing God and what He has done, and promises to do. If a person needs continual manifestations of this in order to believe then this is not faith it is simply another form of idolatry, which the Father cannot countenance.
---->Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. (1Cor 5:8-9)

Canon Scripture is the FINAL authority by which we are to measure all things--doctrine, practice and experiences. This is why the Apostles were at such pains tgo point out that after their deaths heresies would quickly arise within the churches. These heresies were already at work amongst the believers at the time, which is why much of the New Testament Epistles deal with questions of doctrine.

The tradition of the Church was laid out by the Apostles, not the church fathers:
--->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. (2 Thes 3:6)

If Thomas was in India, who was he in submission to? Peter? The Bishop of Rome? I think not. The churches in India had no contact with the Apostles in Jerusalem or anywhere else in the Roman Empire. The churches in India were established independantly from the rest of the churches, it is only later that they became influenced by the representatives of Rome. Just as it was with the Ethiopian churches, the Celtic churches etc.

Janelle said...

About your comment "Canon Scripture is the FINAL authority by which we are to measure all things--doctrine, practice and experiences."

Where did you get that from? This isn't self-evident from scripture itself. Why is this such a certain doctrine for you? Tell me, how did the Bible come to be viewed in this way?

I am not saying scripture is unimportant, I am questioning why it is it's own authority outside of a visible Church that teaches what is contained within it. Please explain this to me.

Janelle said...

- "Christ died at Passover, the "Last Supper" was actually a Passover Seder that the Lord celebrated with His Apostles."

Yes, this is exactly right. I know this full well.

- "The bread of the Seder was the Matzoh the wine was the "Yayim." Up until this point whenever they ate and drank the bread and wine it was done in rememberence of Moses and the Exodus. Christ stated that from then on it was to be done in REMEMBRANCE of Him (1Cor 11:24-25)"

This is what the Mass is... a celebration of eating the bread and drinking the wine that is done in *remembrance* of Jesus. As Jesus asked us to.

Janelle said...

- "The New Testament states CLEARLY that Christs sacrifice can NEVER be repeated in any sense. It was a ONCE and FOR ALL sacrifice."

The Mass does not do that. Once again, it's not repeated, in the Mass the one sacrifice of Jesus is presented to us. Re-presented, as it's often put. That is not the same thing AT ALL. As I said above, Jesus asked us to celebrate His Passover in remembrance of Him, did he not?

- "In fact the writer to the Hebrews makes the comparison of Christ's sacrifice with that of the priests. The priests make a continual repetition of the scrifice whereas Christ did it ONLY once."

Yes, Jesus is the High Priest and made this sacrifice once and for all. This is correct!

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

It was the Apostle Paul who stated-->
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Ti 3:16)

The Bible contains Canon of Scripture which is where all doctrine is derived from. Christ and the New Testament writers were at pains to quote from the scriptures. Christ spoke out against basing doctrine on traditions of men.

The Mass is not merely a remembrance of Jesus it is more than that. In the Mass there is a specific ritual that must be followed by the priest and the congregants. The doctrine of the Mass is distinct from the Lord's Passover. In fact the Vatican has ruled that the death and ressurrection of the Lord be celebrated at Easter and not at Passover.

In the Mass we see the added error of Transubstanciation--which is nothing less that ritual cannibalism--which is clearly abhorrant to the Father. Now you will probably argue that Christ said we must "Eat His flesh and drink His blood" and that it is only through Transubstaciation that we can keep His commandment.

Some will argue "How can we understand this commandment unless it be taken literally?"

When Christ spoke of destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days his detractors took Him literally and used His words to accuse Him.

When Christ described Himself as a grape vine, a door, a root, are we to take His words literally? Of course not, he was speaking figuratively. Remeber when the Apostles queried Him about meat? Jesus had sent His disciples to buy meat and while they had gone he spoke with a Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob. They came back thinking that somehow He had already got some meat somewhere else. (Joh 4:27-34) Here He stated that His meat was to do the will of His Father and to complete this work. Yet again Christ speaking figuratively!

He also spoke to the woman about the water of life which she assumed was drawn out of a well somewhere, however we know that Christ reffered to His Spirit as water which we are to drink in. Not physically but spiritually.

As for the sacrifice of christ being re-presxented to us--this is incorrect, the sacrifice was presented to the Father on our behalf. The sacrifice can never be presented again and again, only once at Calvary. The purpose of His death was to reconcile us to the Father, and this was accomplished at Calvary 2000 years ago.--->For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Rom 5:10)

The celebration of the Passover of Christ was in the context of a meal, not simply reduced to bread and wine. In fact we are to eat the matzoh AND drink the wine, whereas in most Catholic churches this is never done during the Mass--only the priest actually drinks the wine.

Janelle said...

Okay, in response to your post above. :)

The verse from 2 Tim 3:16 is absolutely true. But this statement alone does not give it absolute authority. To begin with, the collection of letters, epistles, and writings that today form the Bible were not finalized until the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364). This was done by the leadership of the Church. Until then, the "scripture" Jesus and the New Testament writers were referring to is the Jewish Torah. The writings of the apostles were circulated among the faithful and read, but not at that point were they yet widely considered authoritative scripture. Who determined what the Bible in it's final form would look like? It was the Church. The Bible did not create itself.

It does say that it is *profitable*. But where does it say that it is the final authority? In several places in scripture the Church is referred to as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine.

Now, on to a discussion about the Mass. Well yes, it is much more than a remembrance. So you say it follows a specific ritual....the Jewish Passover also follows a *specific ritual*! I do not see the argument. Jesus did criticize empty rituals, but he did not condemn all rituals. He did say that He came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law.

Following is a quote from an article on the Mass
(http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2008/mealorsacrifice.html)

*The Passion of Jesus – the sacrifice of the Pascal lamb and the eating of its flesh to redeem mankind – began at the Last Supper in the upper room and ended on Calvary. Therefore, both the sacrifice of the Pascal lamb and the Eucharistic meal began in the Upper Room and ended on Calvary. The Upper Room and Calvary are the two sides of the same coin.*

Perhaps that may help explain what I am trying to say.

Now, talk of His body and blood is one of the many ways in which Jesus scandalized people. You say Transubstantiation is an error... what to make of our Lord's insistence that we eat His body and drink His blood? It sounds ridiculous and scandalous and very off-putting, and yet think of the forcefulness of His words and His willingness to lose disciples over this (He did not explain His meaning further when people walked away, but continued to say it again! And He did explain His meanings in other instances).

And when Jesus said "take and eat, this is my body", at the Last Supper, was he speaking figuratively? We cannot give a blanket assumption that everything He said was meant figuratively. I do not suppose you would say that Jesus was speaking figuratively when He was prophesying about His death - His crucifixion was as literal as you can possibly get.

as you said
- "this is incorrect, the sacrifice was presented to the Father on our behalf. The sacrifice can never be presented again and again, only once at Calvary. The purpose of His death was to reconcile us to the Father, and this was accomplished at Calvary 2000 years ago."

If you want to get really technical, yes, the sacrifice of Jesus was indeed presented to the Father on our behalf. However, this is always before Him - the Father sees all time before Him at once. If God wished to make this event present to His children so they could be witnesses to that which won for us our salvation, what prevents Him from doing so? Jesus came to earth, suffered, died, and rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. However, He ascended to the Father and lives with Him. Jesus our Savior is as present to us today (albeit in a different way) as He was then. If He desired to make Himself again physically present to us on earth in the Eucharist (albeit in a different way than when He walked the earth) what in the Bible says that He may not do so? Or did not do so? In fact, it says that He DID do so.

The Mass is a meal at its core, in which Jesus BECOMES our food. He wants us to share in His divine life...His very LIFE! That is the meaning of the Eucharist, and of the Mass.

Janelle said...

By the way, I was at Mass today and was reflecting on how from beginning to end it is FILLED with scripture. Not merely the three readings from the Old Testament, the New Testament Letters, and the Gospels, but the entire content of the Mass. It is so beautiful.

This here should give you a clear idea of just how thoroughly scripture penetrates the Mass...

http://www.wctc.net/~mudndirt/Scripture%20in%20mass.htm

Janelle said...

Oh, and I wanted to respond to this too -

- "Christ spoke out against basing doctrine on traditions of men."

Then what to be said of the words of the leaders of the early Church?

* "Maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Cor 11:2b)



* "So the, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)



* "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." (2 Thess 3:6b)

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

It is NOT the Bible perse that we are to look at but those writings contained in the Bible, these are the only definitive collection of God Breathed writings on Earth.

The Greek word translated "Profitable" is ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos)
Most of the New Testament books were written when Paul wrote this his latest Epistle: so he includes in the clause "All Scripture is God-inspired," not only the Old Testament, in which alone Timothy was taught when a child ( 2Ti 3:15 ), but the New Testament books according as they were recognized in the churches which had men gifted with "discerning of spirits," and so able to distinguish really inspired utterances, persons, and so their writings from spurious. Paul means, "All Scripture is God-inspired and therefore useful"; because we see no utility in any words or portion of it, it does not follow it is not God-inspired. It is useful, because God-inspired; not God-inspired, because useful.

Christ prophesied concerning His crucifixion was to be taken literally as it had already been foretold in the Hebrew Canon several times during the preceding 1000 years B.C.
--->For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Ps 22:16) being one of several references as to His mode of death. Also we are told that Moses and Elijah had appear to Him previously in order to speak--> of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. (Lk 9:30-31)

You stated "Jesus our Savior is as present to us today (albeit in a different way) as He was then." We have the very words of the Lord to reveal to us HOW His presence would be known to mankind after His ascension--> in John chapters 14, 15 and 16 the Lord speaks of the one who would be sent in His place--The Comforter (Holy Spirit/Ghost). It is not by His becoming flesh again.

You stated about the Mass "from beginning to end it is FILLED with scripture. Not merely the three readings from the Old Testament, the New Testament Letters, and the Gospels, but the entire content of the Mass."

I have attended several Masses before and heard scripture quoted, I have also attended other religious ceremonies practiced by other groups and they to quote from the scriptures, this does not prove anything.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Jesus stated that in order to believe Him we MUST believe the writings of Moses. Moses wrote of the creation of the Earth and all that is in it (Gen Chp's 1and 2) Now the leaders of the Vatican are saying that we do not need to believe what Moses wrote, we can accept the theory of evolution to explain how life came about! This is totally contradictory to the very words of the Lord Himself. I would rather take Christ's own words, and those of His Apostles, over mere men any day!

Paul did speak of the traditions that were laid out by Himself and His co-Apostles for one good reason-->For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1The 2:13)---> For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:12)

The Apostle Peter also acknowledges that Paul's writings were scripture-->As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2Pe 3:16)

I did point out that we were not to base doctrine on the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the writings of the men, however useful they may be, cannot be placed on a par with Canon Scripture. We also know that even the writings of the early church Fathers are not always considered in the formulation of the Doctrines and Dogmas of the Vatican.

We must submit to those things which were set down in Canon Scripture, apart from this we follow the way of those that Paul warned us about---> in Acts 20:29-30

In 1Ti 4 Paul, also, speaks of heretical leaders that would arise out of the churches who would command celibacy and order people to abstain from eating meat... interestingly enough Priests, nuns, monks, sisters and friars are forbidden to marry...and for a long time Meat was forbidden to be eaten on a Friday in the Catholic Church. Interestingly enough the Apostle Peter was a married man when he was chosen as an Apostle, and remained so whilst being an Apostle, according to Matt 8:14-15

There is NO command that people MUST be celibate, even the Apostle Paul in stating that it would be better to remain single did not impose celibacy. At one point Paul himself would have been married because of his being a member of the sect of the P'rushim (Pharisees)--marriage being a requirement of membership.

These requirements of the Vatican are not based on apostolic tradition but merely on the whim and tradition of men!

Janelle said...

A thing that is *true* has multiple layers of meaning, far deeper than what is on the surface. Believing means taking something to be true, but holding that a literary story happened exactly literally as written is just skimming the surface of its meaning, of its true-ness. The Genesis story was written in a particular literary style. The entire Bible contains vastly different literary styles. The purpose of all the scriptures is to tell us about God and His love for us. Life came about because God created it. The Genesis story tells us this, and we believe it is true.

The theory of evolution? As long as it's recognized that it is all God's doing, that it is God who created the world and made man with an eternal soul, it is certainly possible that evolution is the way the world came about, though we don't know for sure one way or the other. This is not a doctrine, and this in *no way* contradicts the story of creation in Genesis!!!

How are you interpreting the Bible, I'm confused? You say one thing is definitely figurative (John 6), and another you say is definitely literal (creation). How did you arrive at this? Do you interpret the Bible literally, or figuratively? Does it depend on the verse? How did you arrive at which verse means what? Did someone in your church teach it to you? Who are they accountable to? Where did they get that teaching from?

Jesus founded a Church and gave it authority. The scriptures flow out of the Church, and are safeguarded by the Church. The Catholic Church is an invisible and at the same time visible church (it is the Body of Christ, and Jesus is both human and divine). I'm wondering, do you believe the Church is solely invisible? Is this why we're not comprehending each other's viewpoints?

------

The requirements you mentioned about - celibacy for those consecrated to God in the religious life, and abstaining from meat so as to remember more solemnly our Lord's death on the day it took place - are disciplines and not doctrine. They are put in place for the benefit of the faithful, and discerned as the Lord's will through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit acting through the leadership (Magisterium) of the Church. Nowhere does the Church say anything like what 1Tim 4 says, that marriage is wrong and eating meat is wrong. What we have said all along is that marriage is SO good that some people are called by God to give it up in order to joyfully give witness to the fact that God is everything we need. Their lives point to the reality of what it will be like for us in heaven, spoken of by Jesus in Matt. 22:30. Also 1Cor 7:32 references a main reason behind this discipline.

Meat is not an issue even remotely on par with marriage... it is clear that meat of any sort was no longer forbidden after the apostles determined it to be so. Catholics have it in place as a discipline connected with being more alert to prayer. Abstaining from meat is not quite full-on fasting, but has an element of that. Prayer and fasting go hand in hand.

The "traditions of men" Jesus was talking about were interpretations of the law that were contrary to the commandments of scripture. In other words, He was talking about doctrine - a serious matter.

The traditions we are talking about here - again, we call them disciplines - are not contradictory at all. There are numerous customs, usages, and practices which form part of our ordinary exercise of our faith. Their purpose and effect are to bring people closer to Jesus, and they are not unchangeable and differ from one part of the Catholic world to another. These things are *not doctrine* and therefore would not be the kinds of traditions Jesus was referring to in the first place.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

How do we interpret the Bible? Firstly we need to be born of the Spirit of God so that the Holy Spirit may indwell our lives. He being the Comforter of God is our teacher, as the Apostle John clearly pointed out:
-->But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)

We come to our conclusions by studying what the Lord and the Apostles ACTUALLY taught through the words of the New Testament Scriptures. Adam is always taught as being a real person in the New Testament. In two of the Gospel narratives Chrisdt's human ancestry is traced right back to Adam.

Even Jesus Himself spoke figuratively--remember when He spoke of destroying the Temple? He was not speaking of the earthly Temple in Jerusalem.

We have the writings of the Prophets that reveal to us God's will and these cannot be contradicted. God will not say one thing and then change His mind. God is not the author of confusion.

The Church of Jesus Christ is not an organisation, it is an organism. The true Church is made up of everyone who believes God and the Son Jesus Christ. It is not made up of a hierarchy of priests and Holy Men, according to the Apostle Peter ALL believers are Holy and Priests unto God
-->But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:(1 Peter 2:9)

The word "Holy" is the English word that corresponds to the Latin word "Sanctus" and this is where the word "Saint" derives!

If we are not Holy we are not His people (Hebrews 12:14)

In 1 Ti 4 it does not state that the false teachers would say that being married and eating meat would be wrong, it states that they would "Forbid" people to marry and eat meat. No Catholic Priest is permitted to marry.

The scripture does not place meat on a par with marriage, it simply states that certain false teachers would arise who would forbid marriage and eating of meat.

Paul states that it would be better for ALL not to marry, as he was, however celebacy is not a requirement and must not be imposed! The Magesterium has got this totally wrong. As we can see through the scriptures even the Apostle Peter was a married man.

The "Traditions of men" were NOT simply "interpretations of the Law." The form of Judaism that Christ railed against was what is called "Rabbinical Judaism." These were rules about how to keep the Law. They became as important (if not more important than the Actual Mosaic Law itself).

By fulfilling the requirements of the Law (both in keeping the Law and receiving the righteous punishment meted out under that Law for us) He set us free from the Law in order that we might become heirs with Him of the Covenant of promise and Grace that God had with Abraham.

(Romans Chapter 8)

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

According to the Apostles and Elders of the Church in Jerusalem, under the ruling of James, Gentile believers should ONLY have 4 things imposed on them.
-->abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. (Acts 15:20 and 29 Acts 21:25.

There are NO more requirements to be imposed on anyone than these. later Church councils contradicted these simple requirements and imposed many other things. These innovations (manmade traditions) were taught as being necessary disciplines in order for people to become closer to Jesus. The Apostles stated that such traditions
-->"have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." (Read Colossians Chapter 2).

Janelle said...

Well, I'm seeing we're talking at each other in different languages here! I am enjoying this back and forth, by the way, it is keeping me on my toes. :)

So you have here:
- "There are NO more requirements to be imposed on anyone than these." referring to Acts 15 and 21

Those verses do not state or even imply that there are from that point on to be no more "requirements imposed on anyone", as you put it. What's being decided there is the way Gentiles must practice their faith - was it to be the same way as Jewish Christians, who at that time continued to observe all that was required under Jewish law, or in a modified way? Obviously, it was decided it would be modified. And why? So they could eat at table together, i.e. so when Christians celebrated the Eucharist together there would be unity instead of disunity.

Janelle said...

Oh, and forgive me if it sounded earlier like I was saying that Adam was not a real person, I did not intend that... most definitely he was. Like I said, the story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written along the lines of modern literary techniques.

I'd like to quote from the Catechism about this, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"
(CCC 390).

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

The language we are speaking is English, is it not?

Studying the background to the verses in Acts 15 and 21, the whole issue was because the Jewish believers assumed that what Christ was requiring all men was to be submitted to Judaic tradition. For this the controversy arose as to the necessity of Circumcison and keeping the Law in order to be Children of God. Paul had witnessed that God made no such demands on the Gentiles. However the controversy became such that a final decision had to be reached. Thus Paul and his group decided to approach the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem.

Paul affirmed that the Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit without converting to Judaic tradition. Peter also bore witness to this as he too had had the same experience as well, in Joppa, with the Gentile Cornelius.

After due deliberation James stood up and made the pronouncement that the only requirements to be imposed on the Gentile believers were the four things I mentioned before. These were not a modification of the Law, as you seem to think. In fact these four things pre-dated the Law, and were codifide in the Law by Moses, and restated by the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

These four things are particularly despicable in God's sight. In Genesis God gave Noah the go ahead to eat meat, hoever the meat was not to be eaten raw, nor the animal slain by strangulation as this retained large amounts of blood in it. The method of slaughter was to be by cutting the jugular and letting the blood totally drain away before consumption.

God has a particular disdain for Vampirism and the consumption of blood because of what Blood is. Blood is life, it is the redemption price of sin. The Jehovah's Witnesses are partly correct in their views of blood, except the rule over transfusions.

In many societies blood is consumed as it is believed that it somehow grants strength and virtue. In Africa certain groups drink fresh blood mixed with milk, in parts of the Far East snake's blood is taken straight from snakes and mixed with acohol and drunk. Then there are those who simply drink blood from the vein (Vampires).

God has always hated the use of statuary as a focus of people's attention, this always tends towards adoration and veneration. He is to be the focus of our adoration and veneration. True He did instruct Moses to make a Brass Serpent and instruct the people to look upon it for their healing. This was a foreshadowing of Christ being crucified for the healing of sin.

Sadly Israel sinned and placed the Brass Serpent in a "chapel" in the Temple where it was venerated by the people. Eventually a Godly king called Hezekiah realised that this Statue had become an idol and so he had it destroyed.
(2Ki 18:1-5)

True God did require statues of Seraphim to be placed in the temple, however these were purely for decoration not for devotion. As with everything that had to do with the Law all these things were a mere foreshadowing of that which was to come. They serve as a dim shadow of the reality of which they represent. The reality is Christ Himself! sadly people keep grasping at the shadows and don't hold on to the reality!
(Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1)

I find nowhere in the book of Acts, or the epistles, which speak of the Jewish and Gentile believers would simply unite around the "eucharist." Nowhere is this stated or even implied in the New Testament scriptures. Their fellowship together did not revolve around rituals and masses, their fellowship revolved around a common belief and their love for one another.

Forgive me but I simply cannot accept the Catechism as being a greater authority than Canon Scripture. I trust the writings of the New Testament authors over the words of men (no matter how learned and pious they may be.

The catechism is NOT God-Breathed, the words in the Bible ARE!

Janelle said...

Right, neither do I believe that the Catechism is a greater authority than Scripture, nor does it claim to be. But you seem to think it contradicts Scripture, and I wholly disagree with you there...that it does not do. It is not a greater authority, but it can be referenced, as it came out of the alive and authoritative leadership of the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit. Many of your interpretations of what Scripture says are outside of the historical fact of things in the early church onward. You are ignoring 2,000 years of Church history, saying it either does not matter or never happened. This seems majorly presumptuous to me.

1 Cor. 11:23-27 is indeed a direct reference to the celebration of the Eucharist.

I was talking about us speaking different cultural languages... :) The understanding of the world in the Catholic view is something holistic and unique and particular, and often is not the same as Protestant worldviews. Perhaps I would describe it as seeing through different colored lenses...

Janelle said...

- "The reality is Christ Himself! sadly people keep grasping at the shadows and don't hold on to the reality!"

Of course the reality is Christ himself! That is all I've been saying. That is EVERYTHING the Catholic Church is oriented around. What shadows do you think people are grasping at? Catholics believe that the Eucharist is Jesus himself - who gives us His very life, that the Church is Body of Christ - and we believers are all members of His Body, and that the mission of the Church - and each member of the faithful within it - is to "spread Christ's Love throughout the world, so that individuals and peoples 'may have life, and have it abundantly.'" (Pope Benedict XVI). How then are we focused on anything but Jesus??? How are we grasping at shadows if it is Jesus who is the center of the life of the Church? These "holy men" you are saying we should not listen to? It is God alone who drives the Church, they are merely His instruments and it is He alone who protects the Church from error in matters of faith and morals. I am not believing in men here, but in God's sovereignty.

Where we differ, it seems, is our understanding of HOW God operates within His Church, and what His idea of Church is in the first place.

Janelle said...

You said...
- "God has a particular disdain for Vampirism and the consumption of blood because of what Blood is. Blood is life, it is the redemption price of sin."

I am assuming you are talking about the Eucharist here as being akin to vapirism? Such consumption of blood as that is evil, because it takes life. But the Eucharist gives us life.

Blood is life. Precisely! The Blood of Jesus is the blood the His divine life. The very life of God. Drinking blood would be abhorrent if it were anything else, but this is GOD we're talking about here! Since the blood of Jesus was spilled for our sins, the redemptive power of His blood is real. He gives Himself to us in love (in so many ways) so as to give us life. He only wants us to receive life from HIM!!!!! And only in Him IS life to be found.

Janelle said...

By the way, do you disagree with the bit from the Catechism that I quoted above? I don't see how you could, it does not contradict the creation story in Genesis.

Or is it that you merely disagree with me referencing it at all?

It is not inspired by God in the same way that Scripture is, but it is the fruit of what the Church has learned from the Holy Spirit over the past 2,000 years about itself and its purpose and mission and all that God revealed through Jesus and the Apostles. It takes time for children to grow in maturity and wisdom... so has the Church developed over time in how it understands itself and the Lord and what He has taught. The Catechism is the fruit of that.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a complete contradiction of scripture. It is filled with scriptures taken out of context, with totally erroneous misinterpretations of scripture.

Most of the doctries and, especially the dogmas are complete innovations which have been added to a long list of man made traditons. The Catechism has no definative aurthority.

The New Testament Scriptures date from the eyewitness period of the Apostles. We read in the early church father's writings some of the worst heresies and these heresies get worse as time goes on.

Even the magesterium itself does not accept everything that the early church fathers wrote as they often contradict the Catechism.

I understand how you view thigs, I have lived in Catholic countries witnessed firsthand the uncertainty of forgiveness, the vanity of indulgeances, the Nicolaitanism of the priests, Bishops and Cardinals.

The history of the Bishops of Rome, their crimes, their wickedness, their adulteries and the vanity of temporal power that has gripped those who sit on the "Seat of Peter"

Catholic people are encouraged to grasp at mere shadows, physical representations of Christ, saints etc. Many Catholics are deluded into believing that the "Eucharist" is the Son of God, even so I have met many who do not believe the dogma of Transubstanciation--and this includes priests themselves.

Christ gave His life once and for all.

A statue is not a living being, it is a mere distraction. When I watch people bow before the images in the church buildings, watch them kiss them and adore them I cringe.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

The history of bloodshed, murder and torture in the name of Christ orchestrated first by the papacy and then by the early protestant reformers only serve to show us that the Church of Jesus Christ is NOT an institution, it is His body. The Catholic Church has not been preserved from error.

The Catholic church has proffited financially from money making scams through sales of indulgeancies, Massas for the dead--even massas to keep children from Limbo. this latter false doctrine has been one of the most wicked inventions of the Catholic church putting millions of fathers and mothers in fear.

The nonsense of "Purgatory" itself contradicts the plain teaching of scripture, that the Blood that Christ shed at Calvary was sufficient to cleanse from all sin.

According to the Scriptures ALL sin is mortal and leads to death.

We are to have faith in and trust only in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary made 2000 years ago. It is done and dusted. There is no more sacrifice for sin!

As far as Vampirism I was not thinking about the Eucharist at all, but you did! In your heart you knoe that the dogma of Transubstanciation is false otherwise you would not have come under conviction about it.

The Apostle taught us that the blood of righteous Abel is a figure of Christ's blood--it cries out from the Earth, it is ever before the Father.

The Catechism is not inspired of God at all. It cannot be considered as being proffitable for doctrine and teaching of righteousness.

Some would even tell us that we cannot trust the Bible implicitly, that we can read it, but not understand it without the teaching of the priests and the Magesterium. This is plain nonsense!

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

The churches of the 21st century are far removed from the ways of God. The Catechism has been changed since Vatican 2. The teachings of the Council of Trent are no longer adhered to.

The flesh and blood of Christ is His teaching, His words. These are spirit and life. These are they which become a spring of water welling up into Eternal Life.

We have what Christ Himself accomplished to believe, we need nought else to believe and have faith in. What God says should be sufficient. If Christ's death reconciled us to the Father then that's all the knowledge we need. To doubt it is to inferr that God, somehow, lied.

I have been reconciled to the Father by the death of His Son on the Cross of Calvary! The blood that He shed then cleansed me from my iniquities. This is what the whole of the Bible declares from Genesis--where God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve by the shedding of the blood of an animal, the sacrifice of Abel, the offering of Abraham's only begotten son, the Passover whereby the blood of a lamb was daubed on the doorposts and lintels of the Israelite's homes, all of these are pointing us to the true sacrifice for sin, the Lamb of God, His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Noah's ark, though a real historical construction, is a picture of the true Ark of God--Jesus Christ. We must enter HIM and be in Him in ordered to be saved.

This we do by faith, without the works of the Law, without works of righteousness. Salvation, forgiveness and reconciliation are offered a a free gift without payment on our part.

We enter the covenant of Promise, the same covenant that God madwe with Abraham. Justified simply because we believe God and no other way!

Men have added to this Gospel, others have taken away from this Gospel yet the bottom line is still this;
-->And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Acts 16:30-31)
-->That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(Romans 10:9-10)
-->But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)
-->For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:20-23)
-->These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1John 5:13)

Janelle said...

- "I understand how you view thigs, I have lived in Catholic countries witnessed firsthand the uncertainty of forgiveness, the vanity of indulgeances, the Nicolaitanism of the priests, Bishops and Cardinals."

Can you explain this comment? What uncertainty of forgiveness? Catholics don't have that. Where have you lived? And what the heck is Nicolaitanism?

I have not seen that do grasp the way that I think, the way I view my faith, the way I view the world. You have witnessed firsthand... meaning you have talked directly with dozens of faithful Mass-attending Catholics who have a solid grasp of their faith? You must have only been talking to lapsed Catholics, who often don't understand or care what the Church believes. Why are you focused on such little things as indulgences? Talk about central, crucial things with me! The Eucharist, the Mass, the Bible, the Church!!! If these major issues are not first grasped, the rest of it doesn't matter!!

Janelle said...

- "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a complete contradiction of scripture. It is filled with scriptures taken out of context, with totally erroneous misinterpretations of scripture."

Everything contained within it? What's your authority for saying that? Whose interpretations are correct then? Only yours? Because most Protestant churches disagree wildy from one to the next about who holds the correct interpretations of Scripture. Whose inspiration from the Holy Spirit is right?

Janelle said...

- "A statue is not a living being, it is a mere distraction. When I watch people bow before the images in the church buildings, watch them kiss them and adore them I cringe."

Oh, for goodness sake. A statue is a reminder of a dear brother or sister in the Lord who was very close to God while on earth and loved Him radically, and who now intercedes for us in heaven in the same way believers on earth do for one another - through Christ to the Father. The saints inspire me to an increase in zeal and love for the Lord, and their statues remind me of their lives which point to the goodness and mercy of God! They are the very opposite of a distraction. And hey, we are incarnate people, what is the matter with kissing a photograph of a loved one who has died, that we remember with fondness? Same kind of thing. Idolatry? I think not. We DO NOT adore saints, or Mary. We show them reverence, as beloved fellow disciples. We ADORE God, and Him alone.

You think you understand Catholics, but you are way off base on this and many things. You are trying to tell me that you know what Catholics are all about yet we Catholics do not! This makes no logical sense. You know bettter than we do? You are not a Catholic, so I think you do not.

Janelle said...

- "As far as Vampirism I was not thinking about the Eucharist at all, but you did! In your heart you knoe that the dogma of Transubstanciation is false otherwise you would not have come under conviction about it."

That's really strange, because we've been talking about the Eucharist for awhile here. No, in my heart I know that the Eucharist is the Real Presence, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, for I have experienced its transforming power in my life and in my heart. I was in no way being convicted about it! I was showing you how how true it is!!

Janelle said...

- "The history of bloodshed, murder and torture in the name of Christ orchestrated first by the papacy and then by the early protestant reformers only serve to show us that the Church of Jesus Christ is NOT an institution, it is His body."

I'd like to know what specifically you are referring to here. If you are talking about the Inquisition then you need a re-education in history. Sounds pretty severe and wide-spread, this violence, from the way you talk about it. I assure you it was not.

However, stupid and horrendous stuff did happen by individual members of the Church. Which is terrible. We sin. And God forgives us. Sin does not prevent God from acting, nor does it prevent him from teaching us and effecting His will in the world. You will not ever find complete freedom from sin in Christians on earth, even though we are to be holy. Christ redeems his Church from her sin, and He is in the process of making us holy. But still we sin. And still He forgives us and invites us with His grace to allow Him to change us into the image of Himself.

With your reasoning it simply does not follow that there wouldn't be a visible Church (which IS Christ's body).

Janelle said...

- "The Catechism has no definative aurthority."

I am sorry, but I would say that you have no definitive authority to usurp 2,000 years of consistent Catholic teaching. May I repeat my questions from earlier that you did not answer:

How did you arrive at which verses in the Bible mean what? Did someone in your church teach that to you? Who are they accountable to? Where did they get that teaching from? Where does this authority that you claim come from?

The Catholic Church claims it from Jesus and the Apostles.

Janelle said...

Sorry for so many comments at once. I have a question for you...

Do you believe anything that I have said is true? I mean objectively true, not whether you personally hold to it, but do believe that the statements I have made about my own experience of the Catholic Church are untrue? I am curious about this.

Take, for example, what I wrote here about statues and the saints. This is not only my own experience of this particular aspect of my faith, but it is also that of millions of other Catholics. Do you trust what I have said to be so? Or do you still think that statues are idolatrous even though I have explained that this is out of the question for a Catholic? You have put forth to me many descriptions of the way you think Catholics believe, and I have told you both what the Catholic Church actually teaches as well as my experience of it. I have corrected you a number of times, if what you have said is not true. Yet you seem to accept NOTHING of what I say *as a correction to your comprehension* of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Tell me, are you judging Catholics by outward appearances only and not by the heart? Are outward appearances only what you hold to?

I do not expect you to agree with me on the authority of the Church or many other things you are vehemently disagreeing with me about. However, when it comes to me explicitly telling you what Cathtolics believe, who are you to authorize WHAT WE BELIEVE OR DO NOT BELIEVE? I am not asking you to agree on the truth of our beliefs, just on the reality that what we believe is perhaps different from what you thought we believed. In other words, that you have misunderstandings about certain things.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

I have lived in Ireland, Spain and Portugal. I have spoken with Catholic priests, Bishops, and many devout Catholics from around the world. I have watched sincere people crippling themselves in order to do penances, pilgrimages to Fatima and San Tiago de Compostela. I have watched people on their knees before images crying out to the images. I have witnessed flagellants and spoken with many Catholic people who after all their deviotion to their faith and their church are still unsure as to whether or not they will enter heaven when they die. Even the idea of purgatory fills them with dread and uncertainty.

Indulgences are not such a little matter. The Popes have milked millions in revenue through the sales of such clap trap. St Peter's Basilica in Roma was funded on the back of this nonsense.

The Eucharist, The Mass, the Bible, the Church? These are all secondary issues, having a complete grasp of these doctrines will not reconcile anyone to God. We cannot come to the Father through any of these things.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

I see nowhere in scripture where the spirits of the dead intercede for us in heaven.

Statues are simply this--dumb idols.

I have never kissed a photo of anyone in my life, its crazy--a photo is a mere picture, it brings fond memories but nothing more.

In Portugal and Spain the Catholics "Prestam adoração a Santissima Virgem Maria!" Which translated means "Give adoration to the Holy Virgin Mary!" They use the word "Adorar" "To adore" which is simply the latin way of saying "Worship".

IO am not speaking concerning Catholics as much as I am about Catholicism. It is Catholicism I have problems with.

Torquemada is well known in Spanish history as were his methods and practice. The Crusade were yet another example of Papal excess.

The church is visible in the lives of those who worship God in spirit and in truth and it is these who constitute the Church.

The Scriptures contained in the Bible, (in their original languages) constitute the definative Word of God on all matters. The Holy Scriptures have God's authority and this authority comes from God Himself not from the church.

Consistant teaching? I think not. New doctrines and dogmas have been constantly added to the Catholic Church many of which weren't even taught even during the period of the Reformation.

Papal Supremacy was not the tradition of the church until it was made a dogma under the Papacy of Leo the Great. The dogma of the Immacculate Conception only came into being in 1854! This doctrine cannot be proven from the writings of the Bible, in fact we see the exact opposite being taught in the New Testament!

The Catholic Church may claim its authority from Jesus and the Apostles, it doesn't make it so. In fact there are older groups than the Roman Catholic Church which do not take their authority from Rome!

The first Christian believers on the British Isles were not Roman Catholic they were Celtic believers whose traditions were different from that of the Imperial Church.

The Church in Ethiopia existed for centuries before the Imperial Church. As have churches all over Europe, Africa and Asia. None of these were under the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, none of them even considered such a thing until the Imperial Church began to impose its will on the entire Roman Empire.

With the Imposition of "Christianity" on the empire the churches very quickly descended into chaos as so many of the church members were not true converts to Christ. This also became true of its leaders and ministers.

The appointees to Church government became political figures with political motives and corruption soon set in.

Bishops often were mere puppets to the business and political ambitions of the rich. Many priests were ignorant of the Bible, quite often they couldn't even understand Latin they simply learned to pronounce it in order to maintain the ritual.

Why is it that for centuries the Popes actively persecuted all those who would seek to translate the Bible into the vernacular? Because the Bible often contradicted what they were teaching. So the Bible became viewed as a subversive book, the men who translated it were viewed as heretics and, if caught, were martyred.

In Portugal, for instance, until relatively recently it was a criminal offense to have a Bible in one's home.

Even today many Catholics are threatened with excommunication by their local priests for attending Bible study groups which are not led by Catholics. I have met such people when I lived in Portugal, and what's more it still goes on in parts of Portugal today!

Janelle said...

Hmmm. I've got many things to say to all this, but I'll have to break it up into bits over the next few days. First a response to this odd comment of yours...

- "I have watched people on their knees before images crying out to the images."

You can't really think that people are addressing the images themselves? You will find many images in Catholic Churches, and always they are there as a reminder, as a concrete visual of a real person who is in heaven with God or a representation of one of the infinite good aspects of God (His Divine Mercy, His Sacred Heart). If people are crying out in a church, you can be sure they are talking to God or the Saints who are in the spirit realm, in heaven. No Catholics think the statues or images are the saints themselves, or God himself... that's just plain silly. However, the images themselves are to be taken seriously because of WHO it is they represent. Christian artists express their faith through making things of beauty that represent God, that tell us about God, but no work of art IS God. People in churches respond to these works of art because they remind us of God, they remind us of Divine Beauty and turn our hearts toward Him and inspire us to praise Him.

Janelle said...

- "Indulgences are not such a little matter. The Popes have milked millions in revenue through the sales of such clap trap. St Peter's Basilica in Roma was funded on the back of this nonsense."

Sorry, but you have your historical information wrong. Indulgences have never been allowed to be sold. If that did happen, it was never done licitly and was certainly not approved by the Pope or the Church - whoever did so was acting entirely outside of the Church on that, and did so for personal gain.

In regards to the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica in the 16th century... a couple of Popes offered indulgences for those who gave ALMS to the church for that express purpose - rebuilding St. Peter's. That does NOT equate to them being sold. True, there was the possibility of abuses, as there are with many things, and obviously that happened in some places.

The following comments say well what I want to communicate on this.
(from http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=108010)

'Let me ask: Would it be wrong for the Church to solicit funds for building a church? Of course not, and such gifts are truly alms given for the sake of God's kingdom. The indulgence was given for that. The problem is that the way the whole thing was handled (various people got commissions before the sum was sent to the Holy See) led to unscrupulous conduct.'

By the way, indulgences are not nonsense.

'They help us to remember that every sin - even sins that are forgiven - have bad consequences that linger, not only for our own soul after we die, but also in this world. In that regard, indulgences are a part of the Church's ministry of reconciliation.'

I'm not sure you understand what indulgences are in the first place, so I will try to explain that in another post.

Janelle said...

- "The Eucharist, The Mass, the Bible, the Church? These are all secondary issues, having a complete grasp of these doctrines will not reconcile anyone to God. We cannot come to the Father through any of these things."

Well, of course only Jesus is the way in which we come to the Father, if that is what you mean. Having a grasp of doctrines has nothing to do with any of this. Jesus gave us these gifts - the Eucharist, the Mass, the Bible, the Church - as concrete and powerful ways for us to grow in holiness and love and grow closer to Him. They are by no means secondary. The Mass especially is an essential *practice* of our faith. Practices are not "empty rituals" but a living out of our identities as children of God.

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has this to say about the Eucharist and the Mass:

'The Sunday celebration of the Eucharist is the essential experience of the faith and the source of our people’s identity as the Church. It is the central act of parish life in which the faithful offer adoration and thanksgiving to God for their salvation in Christ and seek the grace of the Holy Spirit to grow as faithful disciples.'

http://www.zenit.org/article-22937?l=english

Janelle said...

- "Statues are simply this--dumb idols."

I am an artist and I take great offense at the notion that physical created things are worthless. God created the world as a physical place, and through nature, His creation, we are able to encounter a reflection of His beauty, His divine goodness. So too through things of beauty that are created by artists. His Holy Spirit can move powerfully in the hearts of people who look upon works of art, how many testimonies have I heard (numerous!!!) of people whose hearts are moved to love of God because of a work, a creation of beauty.

The Pieta by Michelangelo, the famous statue just to the right as you enter St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, is such a powerful work of art that standing before it I am in awe of God's magnificence at giving us a Savior who would die for us, and it moves my heart to prayer.

Janelle said...

- "The first Christian believers on the British Isles were not Roman Catholic they were Celtic believers whose traditions were different from that of the Imperial Church. The Church in Ethiopia existed for centuries before the Imperial Church...."

Can you explain to me what on earth is the "Imperial Church"? I have never heard of such a thing. And when are you saying it first existed?

And yes, some of the practices of the faith are different in various parts of the world. It is still the same Church.

- "None of these were under the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, none of them even considered such a thing until the Imperial Church began to impose its will on the entire Roman Empire."

What is your basis for this claim? What makes you think the leadership of the Bishop of Rome was a negative thing, or was considered to be? And what time frame are we talking about here?

- "Bishops often were mere puppets to the business and political ambitions of the rich. Many priests were ignorant of the Bible, quite often they couldn't even understand Latin they simply learned to pronounce it in order to maintain the ritual."

Once again, what is your basis for this claim? What specifically are you referring to, where did you get this information? Sure, there were times and places when priests were less educated than at others, and bishops occasionally were corrupt. But to presume that this was the norm is incorrect. Priests must be learned of Scripture, bishops must be holy shepherds of the faithful, that has always been the expected norm. And I am still curious with this - what range of time are you referring to? How many centuries are you covering with these broad sweeps of accusation?

Janelle said...

By the way, I have gone on mission trips in both Ireland and Portugal. Many people there that need the Lord, for sure, but also many many faithful and joyful Catholics. I didn't find Catholics in either country to be full of fear or uncertainty about their salvation. Are you saying you have seen people physically cripple themselves from penances they have done? Perhaps you were just seeing people undertake certain hardships you deemed to be unnecessary. What kinds of penance exactly? And did you know their reasons for doing penance in the first place? I can explain this further, but I need more specifics on what you've witnessed.

And can I ask what your issue is with pilgrimages? I have to been to Fatima and Lourdes and both trips have facilitated a deepening of my faith in God.

Your comments about Portugal seem very odd to me... threatened with excommunication? A criminal offense to have a Bible in one's home? That last one seems laughable - utterly ridiculous, in fact - and I would really like to know where you got such information.

Oh, and I really wanted to talk about this:

- "I see nowhere in scripture where the spirits of the dead intercede for us in heaven."

You see, it's based on the notion of the Communion of Saints, which is entirely scriptural. The paragraphs below describe what is meant by the Communion of Saints (I'm again lifting quotes here, but these are said far better than I could).

'Those who are part of the Body of Christ cannot be separated from His Body through death. We are all One Body. All who are alive in Christ, whether on earth or in heaven, have the joyful duty of praying to God, asking Him to bestow His favors upon those in need. We who are in need must humble ourselves to ask the prayers and petitions of our brothers and sisters, both those here present and those who have gone before us, our elder brothers and sisters who have attained the reward of salvation through Jesus Christ, and stand before His Throne in heaven. The Church Triumphant (those in Heaven) pray for the Church Militant (those on earth), while the Church Militant prays for the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory).'
- Steven Kellmeyer

and

'Our departed brothers and sisters in Christ reign in heaven with God, who is a god of the living (cf. Matthew 22:32), and therefore enjoy an especially close relationship with him. This does not deny that Christians still combating their way through the trials of this world are saints (from the Latin for holy, sanctus), because we are children of God even now. But in the new life, we will be like God:
Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3)
In heaven, we will reach the fullness of the image of God.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. (1 Cor 13)'
- Thomas Howard

Janelle said...

- "Why is it that for centuries the Popes actively persecuted all those who would seek to translate the Bible into the vernacular? Because the Bible often contradicted what they were teaching. So the Bible became viewed as a subversive book, the men who translated it were viewed as heretics and, if caught, were martyred."

Not quite.

'To start off with, vernacular is Latin for “in the language of the people” or the language of the local area. That would mean English in America, German in Germany, and so on.

The importance of Bible translations in vernacular is that it allowed the people of an area better chances of understanding the Bible. Protestants like to claim Luther wrote the first vernacular Bible because the Catholic Church didn’t want the people to read it in their own language.

This is simply false.

The Catholic Church did write the Bible in vernacular. Martin Luther wrote the fourteenth (14th) version of the Bible in German; and who could have written the previous ones if not the Catholic Church? There were over 200 versions of the Bible written in languages other than Latin by the time Luther came on the scene in the sixteenth century. The idea that he wrote the first vernacular Bible is simply not true.

The problem the Church had with vernacular was that it was misused. Remember that the Catholic Church not only was given the Bible and Tradition, but it was given the charge to protect them. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church approved each vernacular Bible to ensure it was written with accuracy. Heretical versions kept cropping up because individuals (like William Tindale for example) purposely changed parts of the Bible they didn’t like. Naturally the Church tried to stop these heretical Bibles from being produced; and earned a notorious reputation in the process.'

http://tadaministries.blogspot.com/search/label/Bible%20Myths

You might be interested to know that partial translations of the Bible into the English language can be traced back to the end of the 7th century.

And tell me, how many of these bible-translating "heretics" were killed? Who were they? Who killed them? You must back up your accusations with facts, details, concrete specifics.

More on the history of Bible translation in England:
http://www.turrisfortis.com/forbidden.html

Okay, I think I've responded to enough for now. Blessings!

Janelle said...

- "Consistant teaching? I think not. New doctrines and dogmas have been constantly added to the Catholic Church many of which weren't even taught even during the period of the Reformation."

So what are they then?

Doctrines and dogmas that have been clearly defined (for what appears to be the first time) are normally done so in response to a protest. When what has always been taught by the Church is called into question or opposed by someone, only then is there a need to definitively define why and how a belief that the Church holds to be true is important. They don't just show up out of nowhere, but they have been clarified at particular times over the centuries for very specific reasons.

In addition, the Church's understanding of certain aspects of the faith deepens over time (over the centuries), and this can also bring a need for clarification.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

We see no examples of the New TYestament believers having images of Christ and the dead saints. We have no prescriptive teaching as to the making of such things and kneeling before them and praying before them.

Why do we need any such representations? Why can people not believe what God has stated, that when we pray in the name of Jesus and believe, HE HEARS US? I have heard this excuse used time and time again and I still repeat, as the Commandment of God states-->

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;"
(Exodus 20:3-4)

The commandment of God is that we should NOT make for ourselves statues. Jesus Christ is the express image of the Father. Man, originally, was created in His image and likeness, and, as Paul wrote to the church of Rome, creation itself shows us clearly the invisible things of God. (Romans 1:20-25)

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

When we pray we have no need for any other intecessor but Christ Himself. We are given direct access to the Father by virtue of Christ, as the scripture so plainly puts it;-->

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:15-16)

We do not have need for "Indulgences" It was never the teachig and/or practice of Christ and His Apostles in the New Testament scriptures. We have, as the Apostle Peter wrote;-->

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2Peter 1:4)

These promises are cotained in the Holy Scriptures, as Peter goes on to confirm:-->

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:19-21)

We need only to believe God, believe what He has said through the prophetic word of the Scriptures--nothing else is sufficient!

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

The Apostles of Christ never stated anywhere that the Mass "especially is an essential *practice*" The eminent Cardinal is merely repeating Catholic Dogma which is nowhere to be found in the words and/or practice of Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostles. I cannot find one mention of the Mass in the entire Bible!

These statues are the work of men's hands-->
(Deuteronomy 4:28; 2 Kings 19:18; Psalm 115:4; 135:15; Isaiah 37:19) They are neither here nor there. My father-in-law used to carve crucifixes until one day a lady came into his shop to purchase one. When she started weaping and kissing the carving he was shocked and never carved another one--he saw the idolatry.

I mentioned to previously concerning what King Hezekiah did with the brass serpent that Moses made--he destroyed it and was rewarded of God for it because the people were revering it and not God Himself.

The "Imperial Church" came into existence when Theodosius (in 380) imposed "Christianity" on the whole empire.

The process of "conversion" was by seeking to "convert" the local ruler who would then impose "Christianity" on his subjects.

The general practice of the Imperial Church, was to "syncretize" the local culture. Reformatting native religious and cultural activities and beliefs into a Christianized form was officially sanctioned; preserved in the Venerable Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is a letter from Pope Gregory I to Mellitus, arguing that conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions, while claiming that the traditions were in honour of the Christian God, "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". In essence, it was intended that the traditions and practices still existed, but that the reasoning behind them was forgotten.

Thus by seeking to "Chistianise paganism, the leaders of the Imperial Church" simply "Paganised the churches". This is why so many critics of Christianity proclaim that much of Christianity is derived from earlier pagan mythology--ie Mythraism & Saturnalia becoming "Christmas", "Easter replacing Passover". Such misunderstandings are easy to comprehend, however New Testament Christianity finds its roots wholly within Hebraic tradition. In Hebraic tradition there was an invisible God who was alone to be worshipped, without images.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

We have only to look into the rise of the Medici's and the Borgias as examples of simony.

In the 14th Century Pope John xxii bought his way to the Seat of Peter, was an incestuous man, perverted church justice, enslaved nuns as prostitutespublished false statements, practiced cannibalism and murder, published the "Sane Considerate allowing heresy charges to be brought against the dead.

In the 10th century Pope John xii (the illegitimate son of Pope Sergio lll and his 13 yr old daughter Marozie) John became Pope at 18 and turned the Lateran palace into a brothel. He was eventually murdered by a jealous husband who found him engaging in sexual relations with his wife.

see: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0130.htm

In the Bull Unun Sanctum of 1302 Pope Boniface declared-->
""We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

Pope Sixtus iv was a rank nepotist, was involved in the Pazzi conspiracy to overthrow the Medici, resulting in a murder on the altar of the Cathedral in Florence:
http://www.cfpeople.org/books/pope/POPEp210.htm

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

I lived in rural Portugal for several years, I also lived in the Azores for several months where the people have special devotion to a bust depicting Christ with the crown of thorns known as "“Festa do Senhor Santo Cristo dos Milagres”, (Festival of the Christ of Miracles)"

I have witnessed pilgrims and penitents in both Spain (where I also lived) and Portugal. I have seen people attempting to walk the entire length of their pilgrimage to Fatima on their knees. I have seen the scares of those who have engaged in flagellation. I have watched the crowds lining the streets in Seville during Semana Santa asking the Naraenes and penitents to pour boiling hot wax over their hands as they paraded past.

Then let us consider the flagellants in the Phillipines who seek to be crucified as an act of peculaiar devotion. Why is all this deemed necessary when Christ Himself suffered in His flesh, this being sufficient to reconcile us to the Father?

By engaging in such things people are actually found to be in unbelief of what God has declared!

There can be NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SIN!-->
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]." (Hebrews 10:10)

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; "--(Hebrews 10:12)

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14)

"This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:16-18)

It was a criminal offense in this country to have a copy of any Bible translated into English which, if found, could mean execution for the person.

First Plumbline Apologetics said...

Where on Earth do these men you quote arrive at such conclusions about the "Communion of Saints"?

What does the word "Saint" actually mean? It is derived from the Latin word "Sanctus" meaning Holy. The New Testament writers chose the Greek word "ἅγιος" (hagios)
The Hebrew Scriptures use "קדוש" (qadowsh)

These words mean that that which is "holy" means literally "Set apart" or "Set aside" for God. As Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus men and women are considered to be Holy and thus Saints (or Sanctified)

The Apostle Peter in writing to all the believers sought to remind them that they were "HOLY", "Set apart for God" therefore "Saints"!
-->"But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" (1 Peter 2:9)

And most of the Epistles referr to the believers in each place as "Saints":
--"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:" (Ephesians 1:1) see also (Phillipians 1:1; Collosians 1:2;) and not as a group of those who were now passed from this life into the next.

The communion of the Saints is referring to those disciples of Christ who are alive in this world. In other words "All those who follow Jesus Christ in this life ARE by definition Saints!"

It is strange indeed, but the second English language Bible wastranslated by Tyndale, who was actively persecuted for his insolence. Joao Fereira de Almeida made the first Portuguese language translation. His translation was outlawed in Portugal for hundreds of years, now it is even recommended by the Catholic Church!

Tyndale was strangled and then burnt at the stake for translating the Bible.

John Wycliffe's remains were dug up, at the command of Pope Martin V, and burned in the 15th Century.

Men such as Miles Coverdale was persecuted under Catholic Mary's reign. Coverdale worked on the Geneva Bible.
(According to Dr. Roger Nicole, visiting professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL, was a consulting editor to the New Geneva Study Bible.)

The problem for these men is that they worked from the Hebrew and Greek texts rather than the Latin Text.

Janelle said...

Wow, your understanding of what scripture teaches and infers is so limited. I don't even know where to begin.

You seemed to have ignored my quote about there already having been 200 partial translations of the Bible into the English language by the time of the reformation, beginning in the 7th century. William Tyndale was certainly not one of the first.

A great deal of the historical information you have been telling me is incorrect or at least unfairly skewed. Tyndale was actually tried and condemned to death by the secular court of the Holy Roman Emperor. And King Henry VIII himself had outlawed his translation. The translation itself was considered heretical and incorrect by both secular and ecclesiastical authorities. The fact that he was translating the Bible into English was not unusual, nor was it opposed. It was the results of his translation - his own personal biased version of the Bible - which was opposed.

You seem quite angry. Why is that?

Janelle said...

And the upwards of six hundred English Catholics who were murdered in the 16th & 17th centuries, killed for refusing to give up being Catholic? Who is to answer for these deaths?

- "The problem for these men is that they worked from the Hebrew and Greek texts rather than the Latin Text."

Whether these men translated from Hebrew and Greek does not give bearing to the fact that theirs were not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture. For this and this reason only were their translations prevented from being published and stopped from wide circulation.

As regards Tyndale,
"He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause."
http://www.turrisfortis.com/tyndale.html

A violent temper is not evidence of wisdom or the presence of the Holy Spirit active in one's life.

- "The communion of the Saints is referring to those disciples of Christ who are alive in this world. In other words "All those who follow Jesus Christ in this life ARE by definition Saints!"

No, the communion of Saints is referring to all those who ARE NOW ALIVE in Christ. That includes those who are in heaven as well as those on earth. Holy, yes, set apart, yes!! Of course that is the meaning of the word *saints*!!! And fully alive in Christ Jesus! I have no wish to deny that the faithful on earth are also saints in that regard, and have said no such thing. The 'communion of saints' refers to the bond, the UNITY, of those who are set apart in Him... those who are now on earth and those who have gone before us are not separated by death but are united and are all saints (holy, set apart) because of Jesus.

Janelle said...

- "There can be NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SIN!-->"

Redemptive suffering in no way says that the sacrifice of Jesus wasn't sufficient. It means our human suffering can now be united with Christ's suffering so that we may share in the redemption he won for us through his very suffering. We are all called to take up our cross and follow Him, are we not?

'Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, for I fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.' (Col:24).

"With Christ I am nailed to the cross. It is now no longer I that live but Christ Who lives in me" (Gal 2:19-20).

“This indeed is a grace, if for consciousness of God anyone endures sorrows, suffering, unjustly." (I Pt 2: 19).

“For the Spirit Himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him. The sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.” (Rm 8:16-18)

"Whoever follows me must take up his cross..." (Mt 10: 38).

---

Pope John Paul II explained in his encyclical Salvifici Doloris: "In the Cross of Christ not only is the Redemption accomplished through suffering, but also human suffering itself has been redeemed...Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished...In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ...The sufferings of Christ created the good of the world's redemption. This good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the Church as his Body, Christ has in a sense opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering."

In response to your protest, please carefully note the phrase above - 'No man can add anything to it.'

Janelle said...

Regarding corrupt Popes (scandalous and horrible, yes, but there have been very few of them - to be precise, only 10 out of 264):

Jesus clearly taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. Here is what He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Janelle said...

- "When we pray we have no need for any other intecessor but Christ Himself. We are given direct access to the Father by virtue of Christ, as the scripture so plainly puts it."

Dude, it clearly states that in scripture that believers are to pray for one another. The intercessory role of a Christian does not usurp the role of Christ as intercessor to the Father, but we as Christians all have a share in His priesthood (i.e. *intercession*).

Asking the saints in heaven to pray for us goes along those exact same lines (because we are all alive in Christ!!!).

Janelle said...

- "I cannot find one mention of the Mass in the entire Bible!"

You're funny.

Read through the book of Revelation.

Especially chapter 19. You'll find reference to the Supper of the Lamb, or the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. The Mass, the earthly liturgy, mirrors the heavenly liturgy that is described all throughout Revelation. The Mass is there, it's all there!

Each Mass parallels the worship offered to God in the choirs of angels and saints. At Mass, heaven and earth meet before the eyes of faithful Catholics throughout the world. Amazingly, the bizarre imagery, the mystic visions of Heaven, and the end-of-time prophecies of the Book of Revelation, precisely mirror the Sacrifice and celebration of Holy Mass.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/revelation_and_the_mass.html

Have a look at this, too:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc3.htm