Yes, there have been many Lutherans “returning home” to the Roman Church just as there have been numerous Romans “leaving home” to become Lutherans.  As for correcting the mistakes of “Father Martin”, leaving Rome was not one of them.  Luther never left; he was kicked out the Roman Episcopate for simply questioning the corrupt practices by very fallible men hiding behind the cloak and power of a highly dysfunctional hierarchy.  Now, if we are talking about correcting the mistakes of Luther’s policies towards Jewish people or his reluctance to embrace subsequent conversations with Rome and other reformers during his older and crankier years, that is different; however, the fracture of Christian unity was not started with Luther but with the corruption of the Roman hierarchy of the day that showed a greater faith in their own power and piety than faith in Christ.  If Romans truly want Lutherans to “come home” to the Catholic Church, then Romans must come home to the Catholic Church, too.  Both must work to correct the mistakes of their predecessors, reformer and pope alike.  While some Lutherans may be leaving the camp of Confessional Lutheranism to the camp of the Roman Episcopate, to think that Lutherans are on the verge of just saying, “Oooppps, Luther was wrong, we were wrong, you were right, here we come back so kill the fatted calf,” is not reality and is not a hope that can be sustained as consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Catholic faith.

Rev. Bennight,
Perhaps you may note that Catholic converts are most often well-educated, well-respected, convicted Christians who convert after deep study, prayer, and discernment.  That is what makes them so strong.  There are many Romans who “leave” home, but most often they are the “runaways”, people who neither understand nor care about learning about the Church, or people too angry about this or that teaching to be faithful, or those who have simply drifted away, or those who are lukewarm and have been hijacked by a society and certain Protestant groups who continue to spread misleading and weighted attacks on the Church daily.  The difference is that Catholic converts and reverts are drawn to the Church by truth.  Those who leave the Catholic Church either find the Church too “truthy” for their tastes, or are convinced by slanders and lies.  The slander and lie that is most common is that fallible and sinful men cannot rightfully lead the Church.  Considering that all the original men who founded the Church deserted Jesus save one, and the leader of that first group of men denied Jesus to His face, I’d say that theory is pretty much bunk.  We have faith that God guides His Church even through scandal, even through corruption; He will bring us through the toils and snares.  He truly has and truly will.  It was a mistake indeed to leave Rome; there are many more saints who challenged the Church, did more than “simply question” their corrupt practices, and by their efforts and faithfulness graced by God brought us out of those times.  “By their fruits you shall know them”, and while there have been and will still be times of corruption and scandal in the Roman Church, it remains as perhaps the last Christian bastion against the powers of the world.  The fruit of the Reformation is schism, relativism, and the dissolution of Christianity into a “body” that is so divided on beliefs and ritual that it is mostly irrelevant.  That is why people would convert.

Generalizations aside, I think you hit the nail on the head by saying Lutherans won’t become Catholic until Catholics start becoming Catholic. As a Catholic convert, I hope, pray, and work toward building up my brethren, Protestant and Catholic, especially those who don’t have a vibrant and passionate faith. I would like to present one observation, however.  In my experience, it is those Catholics who never were Catholic, as the above blog suggests, who convert to other denominations. That is to say, they didn’t really know their faith and didn’t have a intimate friendship with Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, it seems that many of those who convert to Catholicism from other denominations know their faith well and have a deep relationship with our Lord.  I bring this up not to draw fire, but simply to see if others have witnessed the same or can cite cases of prominent (or public if you prefer), faithful, Catholic figures who have converted to other denominations such as the Protestant ones cited in the above article.  Please do not take this as pride or boasting, the Sacred Scriptures have spoken on both of those matters… But rather, take it as a reality-check on my bias.  Let us all pray for unity and strive for it in love and truth so “...they may be one…and the world would know me.”

As a former Lutheran who swam the Tiber a few years back it is very true what is said about those who have left Catholicism, and now seem to hate the Catholic Church, and those who embrace Catholicism, yet love the traditions they came from. I have nothing but great esteem for the Reformation fathers. I still read Luther and Calvin today. I believe in their hearts they were trying to do the right thing. Only, they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they left the Church, and left the Church they did. There were plenty of Saints who reformed the Church from the inside, even when they themselves were abused by the Church (ie. St. John of the Cross). Lutherans and Anglicans have witnessed the exponential decay of Church unity with the Bible Church and Fundamentalist movements. I remember the day I realized that I, as a Lutheran, was closer to the Catholic/Orthodox faith, than I was to the many evangelical churches emerging today. As I watched my friends leave the Lutheran church for the “freedom” of the evangelical churches, I started to wonder how much more freedom do we need. Will it come to a time when every person has the right to form their own God from the Bible as they read it. Once I wondered that, I was bound to become a Catholic.

Fr. Phillips rocks by the way!

The post from Kephas said it better than I ever could.  Luther didn’t like what he saw in the flawed men who made up the hierarchy so he took it upon himself to shatter unity in the body of Christ.  There’s no way to candy coat it.  And here we are, 30,000 denominations later with Christians swimming amongst a hodgepodge of contradicting and erroneous teaching.  What Luther did makes the abuses of Catholic churchmen look like child’s play.

If you’re waiting for all men in the hierarchy to be impeccable before you deem the Holy Catholic Church worthy of your presence, you will wait until the end of time, at which point it will be too late.  The one true Church was left in the hands of flawed sinners from the beginning and will always be in the hands of such men.  But She is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost, and only She is thus protected. 

To despair over the flaws of the men in charge is a betrayal of faith in God who established this Church and who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail.  That it Luther’s ultimate error in my opinion.  How many souls have been lost as a result?

God bless these good and thoughtful Lutherans who, with much difficulty I’m sure, have taken the proper course.  May they influence many of their brethren.

this not good news at all for these people to back to the RC church its a slap in the face to the founder fathers of the reformed churches. what are they thinking.

Dealing with the poor human material in the Catholic Church is probably the biggest hurdle faced by educated converts and self-righteous people in the Catholc Church.  If you can find a copy of “Enthusiasm” by Ronald Knox you will find that Puritans of all stripes have been trying to save the Catholic Church since the beginning. 

Dwight Longenecker had a wonderful post at http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2006/10/churches-hypocrisy-and-stolen.html about this issue.  Here are some excerpts:

“We converts from Protestantism find it difficult to shake the idea that the church should be what we expect it to be: a congregation of good people just like us. We have religious utopianism running in our Puritan veins. We expect the church to be made up of saints who are already perfect…just like us.”

“For those who are simple minded this is a cause to reject the church—‘How can you go there with all those people who are pretending to be so holy when we all know how rotten they all are?’”

“As usual, G.K.Chesterton summed it up. He said he knew the Catholic Church was for him because when he left his umbrella at the back of the Methodist Church it was still there, but when he left it at the back of the Catholic Church it was stolen.”

Eveyone who chaffs at the jerk in the next pew should periodically read Matthew.  Christ describes the Kingdom of Heaven in terms of weeds sown by the devil among the wheat, and the dragnet that pulled up every kind of fish which must then be sorted through, etc.

It is clear that the true church will not be an assembly of saints, but an assembly of saints and sinners.  The Catholic Church is true, not perfect, and is the saint-making machine given to us by Jesus Christ.

First - welcome to all who come to Christ’s church.

Yes you are right so many cradle Catholic’s leave the church for a number of reason; so many of the young people were not taught what Catholicism means.  They are not taught how to live a life guided by the ten commandments; they do not understand meaning of the seven sacraments - that is if they even can name them.
They see the hypocrisy of the administrators.  So many people are unable to past mans vices and focus on Christ’s teachings.
The fault lies in they are being taught by politically correct individuals.  There is no Catholic religion being taught.  The people are going to where they see half a loaf, which is half loaf more than they are getting in the Catholic Church.

In reply to Charles Horn:

“I have nothing but great esteem for the Reformation fathers. I still read Luther and Calvin today. I believe in their hearts they were trying to do the right thing. Only, they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they left the Church, and left the Church they did.”

Charles, I wonder if you have ever read “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” by Fr Louis Bouyer. He was a convert from French Protestantism and his book outlines his theory that much of what the Reformers proposed was consistent with Catholicism but then they introduced certain ideas that weren’t.

Sola Scriptura was Luther’s first commandment. Did he forget that the Church existed before the Bible was compiled?
In the Gospel of John Jesus prayed that the apostles remain as one. Is this what Reformation achieved?

Besides the lack of both scriptural and historical basis for Sola Scriptura, it gained no credibility by Luther’s and other protestants’ lack of reverence for God’s Word by removing entire sections out of the Bible. Luther himself wanted to ditch books of the New Testament also, before being forced by his disciples to keep them. In the end, his disciples left him to create their own churches for their own fashions. They were of course just emulating him. Beginning the protestant rebellion against Christ’s Church was the greatest conquest of Satan since the fall of Adam and Eve.

The priest abuse scandal helps us current Catholics realize the anger or disgust that led to the revolution that became the reformation - and yet, we can see in it also how the Church needed the Counterreformation to weed out the bad actors and harmful mispractices.

This time, satan’s smoke hopefully is snuffed and being ventilated out with the removal of bad actors and harmful mispractices WITHOUT a revolution and fracture. 

Pray this fixing continues and that in a crazy as God twist, shows our separated brethren that we fall, but we eventually painfully learn and eventually at least do something about it….that all is not so hopeless to be worth separating from His Church full of weak, fearful, innept sinners.

...but what are the nuts and bolts of Lutherans leaving; homosexuality, abortion,etc. These are the real reasons Religions moves in and out of favor

Another ELCA Lutheran to Rome here. I was a synod delegate when there was a motion to “study” homosexuality. When people came to the microphone and gave us the “First they came for the communists…” routine it became clear that this wasn’t about studying homosexuality; it was about approving it. We managed to vote it down (this was about ten years ago), but I could see the writing on the wall—this was going to be reintorduced and reindtroduced until the secular Left got a bigger share of a diminishing market and shoved it down everyone’s throat (which has since happened). Add the ELCA’s hooking up with the smouldering pile of rubble that used to be the Episcopal church (see Chris Johnson’s blog for that) and basically the tradtional Lutheran had two choices—go Missouri Synod (the more conservative splinter group of Lutherans), or swim the Tiber.

@Bill - That is definitely something I’ve had to learn in the past 12 years since becoming Catholic - the Church is a hospital for sinners…it isn’t heaven yet!  At the same time, we can’t just stop with “well, Christ came to call sinners, and here we all are together…”  He came to call sinners…AWAY from their sins to repentance, and into relationship with Him, into a life of profound love, which means “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”  Yes, this is a Church of wheat and weeds, of saints and sinners…but the saints were those who spent the most time trying to help other sinners become saints as well.  It isn’t Puritanism or utopianism to believe that all of us are called to spend our whole lives striving to live Christ’s words, “You must be perfect, as my heavenly Father is perfect.”  Yes, it would be a problem if the fact that most everybody in the Church hasn’t reached that perfection yet made us reject the very remedy that Christ gave us for the sickness of sin.  But I think we have to be careful, too, not to slack off from striving for the perfect love and holiness that we are ALL called to, and helping our brothers and sisters strive for it as well, just because “this is a Church for sinners, too.”

Welcome back to the Mother Church—my long lost brothers!

To McBride, “What were they thinking”?.....perhaps of their Salvation?  Anyone who leaves the Most Holy Roman Catholic Church leaves in their own sin and arrogance.  Jesus said, ....the gates of hell shall not prevail against her”. Can you not listen and trust the Master?  We, the Militant church on earth, witness the revolving door of people coming and going, for whatever their excuse, for me and my family we shall serve ChristAks church He established on PETER, no matter what, the true church is the RC church and you all know it, Satan will always scratch and claw to get to sit in the chair of Peter, our job is to be the example of Christ, live a moral life and keep Satan out, not leave and join his minions! Unfortunately, there are wolves in sheeps clothing that infiltrate her and try to discredit her, however, anytime this comes to light, they only remove theselves from salvation and are no longer members of the kingdom of God.

Dear Lutherans, you might feel that you are helping yourselves, but I feel that you are helping us by joining the Holy Catholic Church. We Catholics need all the help that we can get. Thank you and may God bless us all.

When it comes to faith matters, ignorance just aint bliss and it is folly to be so! I am a Catholic who continues on this journey of discovering the treasure that lies in our Church, given by Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father. I love my church. I love the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. At the same time I am deeply conscious that I am sinner in need of God’s mercy and there are millions of others of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in the church, also in need of His mercy. I try to frequent the Sacrament of Reconciliation once a month and I have no words to describe the joy of meeting the Merciful Lord in the person of the priest, the other Christ. Who but the Catholic church offers me the Bread of Life and the mercy of God to help me on the path to holiness? Only the church that Jesus founded can. I say this with no pride but with a deep love and desire that many will come to experience the fullness of faith in the Catholic church. God bless you all…

What happens when you practice “sola scriptura”? The result is more than 30,000 contradictory Protestant sects, and a profusion of confusion.

In “sola scripture,” everyone is the pope. In the Holy Catholic Church, you have only one pope. I’ll go along with the successor of Peter, i.e., the pope and the papacy.

After reading some of the comments I agree that Catholics in general have not been doing a good job living the faith daily and walking the walk - some would even say talking the talk the past 50 years or so.  There is though thank God an awakening within the Catholic Church and many, many silently are now learning how to live the true faith and walking the walk.  The Holy Spirit is quite active but certainly under the radar of the mass media and this includes the religious mass media for the most part.  I am very happy that many of our protestant brethern are also being inspired to wake up and realize that the Catholic Church is the last bastion of the true faith and it is not giving in to worldly compromise which is the order of the day!  As many of the Christian sects drift further and further away from the Gospel this march back home will continue.  Let us continue to pray for our sad world which is seemingly on the brink of destruction.  God is here now!  He loves us and is helping us - We need to implore his mercy and continue to walk the walk with his Grace to enable us to do so. 
Yours in JMJ,
Ted

I was a life-long member of the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).  My conversion was and has been fruitful and full of blessings on a spiritual level.  However, it was disappointing to my parents, former pastor, and friends in the WELS.  I believe they still teach that the Pope is the antichrist.  So you can see that the pressure not to convert is tremendous, but the blessings so outway that pressure that it was so worth it.  I don’t see the WELS or Missouri Synods reuniting anytime soon, but I rejoice in the AALC members coming home.  Welcome!

What brought me to Rome?  Our dear Jesus in the Eucharist.

As much as the Lutheran Church has drifted from the original ideals and teachings of Luther, and as opposed to the true church, the Catholic Church, was founded by a man and not by God, we Christians must discard our differences and work together against satan and his forces. Let’s wake up and do this together. The evil one is well organized and has control of most of the world through the “banking interests” that our great Pope talked about a while back. We need to work within prayer groups to teach and establish Gods kingdom.

Scriptues says that “the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church.” It begs the question as to which one since the rebellion against Catholic authority create confusion, wars not much unlike those between Shiites and Suuni’s in the Middle East today, and centuries of strife. This cannot be the fruit of reform nor is it a response to Jesus’ prayer Ut Unum Sunt—that they may be one. While human beings are fallible, the infallability of the one Church on faith and morals, that Jesus started and which Jesus promised would prevail until His return, is built on fallible men in the same way that inspired Scripture came through fallible persons. The falllable nature of those who penned God’s inspired word does not render the Word fallable. In the same way, the injustices by members of the Catholic Church—both real and perceived, do not invalidate the oneness and infallability of the Catholic Church on faith and morals. The intellecutal Lutheran (and Anglican) giants who are making their way back into fullness and universality of Catholicism is more a challenge to Catholics to deepen their faith and indeed to believe it. It is not the Catholic Church which is saving Lutherans, Anglicans, or other Christian sects who are converting to Catholicism. In God’s infinite wisdom, the Protestants will save Catholicsim by the faith, knowledge and holines their influx brings.

“Luther never left; he was kicked out the Roman Episcopate for simply questioning the corrupt practices by very fallible men hiding behind the cloak and power of a highly dysfunctional hierarchy.”

Luther questioning corrupt practices?

He discarded seven books from the OT canon and four books of the NT canon.  He added the word “alone” to one of Saint Paul’s epistles.  He also gave permission, and sanction, to Philip of Hesse to commit bigamy and then told the people involved to be quiet about it.  He urged others to commit adultery and stated that people who don’t accept his doctrine are damned.  He broke his vows and helped others to do so.  He advocated the slaughter of the peasants and had no love, to put it mildly, for Jewish people.

In the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, there has never been a single pope who added a word to Sacred Scripture in order to twist it to fit his newly made doctrine.  Martin Luther had no qualms in doing that.

It is absurd, at best, to think that Luther was worried about “corrupt practices by very fallible men.”  If he were, he would have applied it to himself.  He was quite fallible and quite corrupt.

Marc B

Your point is interesting, because if one studies the “Lutheran Confessions” one finds that Lutherans quite readily accept the notion that a particular person’s, i.e. priest’s, holiness does not render the sacraments invalid becuase they are Christ’s work, not ours, through the priest as an instrument, even though the priest may be corrupt.  However, in a strange twist—or purely anti-pope and establishment—Luther defends his rejection of the papacy and magisterium of the Church on the basis that if the Holy Spirit was really involved there would be no bad popes (of which there were a couple) or no sinful people in the hierarchy. 

To me, that is a very strange contradition, but on the other hand, is one example of what you’re getting at.  The teachings they already know can HELP in the renewal of the Catholic Church, once the scales fall from their eyes and the see the inherent contradicitons built in the Lutheran confessions for, I believe, ‘political’ purposes.

To expand on Kephas: Most all the Roman converts self-study themselves into the Church at an intellectual level, doing tit-for-tat comparisions on doctrine and elucidation of bible verses. Those fleeing the Catholic church are well… very open to sales tactics, and frequently not open to self-study or getting deep within ecumenical studies. In this respect it is a one-way road into the Catholic Church. I’m a revert to Catholicism from Bible believing Protestantism and I self-studied my way back in.

DJReidy, thanks for your fact-filled post.

This article may be of interest from a very respected member of the ministerium of hte Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/01/the-catholic-i-am

My own $.02 on the matter of ecclesiology from a Lutheran perspective:  http://bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2006/12/repost.html

Brethren:  The simple fact is that Neuhaus, Klein, Root et al. were leaving a body going by the name of “Lutheran.”  In reality, the present day “Lutheran” churches have little in common with the “Lutheran” Confessional documents.  Sigh!  Even though I am a Lutheran, born and bred, I have considered the possibility of entering the “Roman” discipline because of this truth (My dear, old, long dead German Lutheran grandmother would probably turn over in her grave.).  However, after many years of study, I have concluded that, Cardinal Newman to the contrary not withstanding, “to be deep in history is to find no compelling reason to become (Roman) Catholic.”  Neuhaus, Klein, Root et al. had (have) a certain temperament which made (makes)the R.C. Church appealing. It’s where they needed (need) to be. In all sincerety, one must say to all who enter that venerable and very large denomination, a denomination of great saints and spiritually gifted teaches, “go in peace and serve the Lord,” which I’m sure they will…Of the fact that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church there can be no doubt. However, it is just as certain that he established the Lutheran Church (as known by the Confessions) as well. One size does not fit all!...Interesting note:  I’m reading Benedict’s “Called to Communion” as part of my Lenten discipline wherein he quotes both Joachim Jeremias and Oscar Cullman, both German “Lutheran” theologians.  I wonder what possessed him.
In Xto per pedes Apostolorum, James E. Townsend, Lutheran minister, retired

During these precious days of Lent, and on this holy day dedicated to St Joseph, may i please ask all of us as Christians to pray fervently for those who glorify our Risen Lord as one Body. Our fight is not against other Christians, but against those who are trying to annul and erase the Name of Jesus from our lips and minds.  We must be ever vigilant and pray unceasingly. We have been chosen, predestined, to live during these times…let us proceed to battle through prayer.

Kephas and others who have thoughtfully responded. 

I reject the notion that somehow Lutherans converting to Rome are more educated and faithful than those going in the reverse.  From what source do you make this claim?  By the high profile converts?  By the laity?  From my observations as a parish pastor, the converts both ways are equally faithful and educated.

As to DJReidy statement: 

“In the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, there has never been a single pope who added a word to Sacred Scripture in order to twist it to fit his newly made doctrine.  Martin Luther had no qualms in doing that.”

...I don’t even know where to begin with that.  Of course there was never a Pope who added a word to sacred Scripture because the Pope could interpret it however the Pope wished.  Also, when Scripture is obscured and hidden from the people, the hierarchy can say whatever they wish to say about true interpretation of the Bible.

Now, I do not hate Roman Catholics. In fact, I encouraged a father in my own Lutheran parish to join the local Roman Catholic parish because he married a Roman Catholic woman and has children that she wants to raise Roman Catholic.  When someone wishes to stop attending the local Roman Catholic Church to become Lutheran, I insist that be both sit down and talk with the local priest together.  I work ecumenically with the local Roman Catholic parish all of the time and I defend it all the time from other “born-again”, self-denomination Christians who are often critical of our ecumenical efforts.

But the arrogance of a select few within Roman Catholicism that see the Reformation as merely a problem with a few devilish rebels trying to dismantle the unity of Christ’s Church, and understanding of ecumenism that is basically “we are right and you have nothing to offer but to simply stop being you and start being us” is just downright insulting, delusional and not based in truth.  It is symptomatic of the exact problem that the Reformation addressed, which is the inability of the hierarchy of Christ’s Church (in all of its forms) to see that sometimes it is being like the disciples who abandoned Christ at the cross; that sometimes, Christ is saying to us as he said to Peter, the Rock, “get behind me, Satan!” 

I encourage us all to see the roots of the disunity within Christ’s Church by not merely pointing the finger at the other, but back at ourselves.  The Reformation may have been sparked by a radical German priest, but the fuel for the fire had been supplied by Rome for centuries prior to that.

Could ever faithful lover of Jesus Christ, being Protestant fell so deep to call pope the antichrist?
Over 200 successors of St. Peter be the devils minions ? Was not the Protestant’s movement the most epochal
success of Satan ?  Did not Jesus promised that He will be with the church up to the end ?
Some cardinals, bishops, priests, failed and certainly Jesus expected that. But the Magisterium approved with the Holy Spirit stayed untouched. The absence of Holy Spirit in some heads played in to the hand of Satan who was the winer of the poor souls, who are crowding the thousands of Protestant sects. They all are in my prayers.

Etean

I feel so blest to come from a long line of Catholics- on my mothers side.
My father converted to catholisium when I was a kid—
My mother was a wonderful teacher for my father. My father worked darn hard to make sure his 4 kids were able to attend a catholic school.
I was not a perfect catholic I did fall from grace so to speak as an adult and fell into drugs and was a heroin addict off and on for ten years.
I wore my scapular and I still prayed even when I was deep in my addiction. I remember crying as I was sticking that needle in my arm—I cried and apologized to God for what I was doing and i said God forgive me and help me out of this I know this is like shooting liquid demons in my arm but I just do not want to get sick.

I tell every one of you reading this that even when I was so low and deep into this horrible addiction—I still was crying out to God—I still cried out for his Mercy.
I even sat in my backyard one night after trying to OD—I just said God—I do not want to be like this anymore.
God told me I was not allowed to take my own life because He would decide when it was time not me.
It took me almost 7 more years later before I was completely out of that lifestyle.
When I was FINALLY clean and sober again I would pray and ask the Holy Spirit to quide me to where I am supoose to be and each and everytime I asked I always found myself in the confessional in the Catholic church.
I am not a theologian or a scolar or a doctor of the church—I am a simple person who knows in her spirit that being catholic is and has been the best medicine I could ask for.
Going to confession is way better than having to go to a shrink.
Going to Holy Communion and receiving the body blood soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ heals my soul.
I am no saint—I am a sinner but thank God that He Loves the sinner not the sin and will always forgive a truely sorrowful soul.
I have alot of family members that have left the catholic church—
To me that is very sad—I just am not willing to turn away from the Eucharist—the medice that heals my soul.
Jesus said at the Last Supper ” THIS “IS” MY BODY” THIS “IS” MY BLOOD”
How can anyone not get that. He did not say let’s pretend this is My Body -This “Is” My Blood—-HE SAID THIS “IS”  Jesus is not a lier and He wasn’t talking in parables. How could Martin Luther change that-and not believe in the TRUE presence after the consecration-? Just because there was some curruption in the church—Jesus isn’t currupt and His words are not currupt and isn’t Jesus Christ the same Yesterday Today and tomorrow-?

Dear Brnda, my sister in Christ, your testimony moved me beyond words could describe. I am an apostle of Divine Mercy and have a deep desire to speak to the world about it. As Jesus said to St Faustina ” The greater the sinner, the greater the right he has to My mercy. He who trust in My mercy will not perish and his enemies will be shattered at the base of My footstool.” May the Lord use you in a mighty way to share your wonderful testimony of His mercy meeting your misery and bringing healing and wholeness to you. Like you, I cannot live with the Daily Bread of Life. God bless you, dear sister and grant you all the Graces to help you in your daily walk with Him. Yours in Christ, Marianne

The tearing icon of Our Lady of Soufanieh in Damascus Syria, Myrna Nazzour, and others are praying for Christian Unity world wide…May God Bless us all in this mission.

Dear sweet Marianne,
Sorry I always type to fast and do not take time to go over what I write. My name is Brenda but I left out the e so you got Brnda
I thank you so much for your response. I LOVE The Divine Mercy Chaplet.
I am trying to get my two daughters to say it everyday and teach their little boys.
It is not a hard chaplet to learn and the power of The Divine Mercy is awesome—it is also a much needed prayer especially in these times.
God Bless you and thank you again
—-Brenda—-

Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus started churchES?  I can only find this:  “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.  ~Matthew 16:17-19
The Catholic Church has direct lineage back to St. Peter, the first Pope. It is the trunk of the tree.  All other churches are the branches and WERE STARTED BY MEN, not Jesus.  When they didn’t like something, they started their own Church.  Luther “quit” The Church on Halloween (interesting date huh? it’s satan’s day?) by tacking his resignation on the Church door.
Christians have 85% of what Catholics have.  There are 5 ADDITIONAL SACRAMENTS they are missing and what converts see and believe to know The Truth- in particular THE EUCHARIST BRINGS THEM HOME.  ASK JESUS FOR HIS TRUTH AND HE *WILL* SHOW YOU - but don’t be surprised where it may lead you.  ;-)
This is a great show showing CONVERTS TO CATHOLICISM.  Why don’t you check it out?  Find the previous religion that interests you.  You’ll find they have nothing but love for their “roots”. 
http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/journeyhome.asp
May God Bless you on your journey to find His Truth,
Lisa

Luther “quit” The Church on Halloween (interesting date huh? it’s satan’s day?) by tacking his resignation on the Church door.
Christians have 85% of what Catholics have.  There are 5 ADDITIONAL SACRAMENTS they are missing and what converts see and believe to know as His Truth- in particular THE EUCHARIST BRINGS THEM HOME.  ASK JESUS FOR HIS TRUTH AND HE *WILL* SHOW YOU - but don’t be surprised where it may lead you.  ;-)
This is a great show showing CONVERTS TO CATHOLICISM.  Why don’t you check it out?  Find the previous religion that interests you.  You’ll find they have nothing but love for their “roots”. 
http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/journeyhome.asp

Can anyone show me in the Bible where it said Jesus found ChurchES?  I can only find this:  “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades WILL NOT OVERCOME IT”. ~Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus found the Catholic (means Universal) Church. ALL other churches were founded by men when they didn’t like something and thought they knew what was “best”.
It was the Catholic Church that we must thank for the bible and in recent years when the Protestant church saw fit to THROW OUT 7 BOOKS that the Holy Spirit inspired them to put in years and years ago.

Jesus wants His body unified!  The Catholic Church is the trunk.  All other churches are the branches.  When someone didn’t get their way - a man started his new church.  Do you realize ALL churches believed abortion and contraception were wrong?  In the 1930’s, the Episcopal Church was the first Church to OK contraception.  The Encyclical entitled:  Humane Vitae by Pope Paul VI in 1968 told if contraception is allowed, it will lead to the objectification of women, sexual promiscuity, pornography, abortion, etc.  POPE PAUL VI WAS INDEED RIGHT!!!!  SEE THIS LINK:  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
AND POPE JOHN PAUL II IS AGAIN RIGHT:
“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the ‘final’ confrontation between the Church and the Anti Church, of the gospel and the anti - gospel. This confrontation lies in the plan of Divine Providence.”
~Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), reprinted November 9, 1978, issue of The Wall Street Journal from a 1976 speech to the American Bishops

Jesus wants His body unified!  The Catholic Church is the trunk which speaks His truth.  All other churches are the branches.  When someone didn’t get their way - a man just started his new church.  Do you realize ALL churches believed abortion and contraception were wrong?  In the 1930’s, the Episcopal Church was the first Church to OK contraception.  The Encyclical entitled:  Humane Vitae by Pope Paul VI in 1968 told if contraception is allowed, it will lead to the objectification of women, sexual promiscuity, pornography, abortion, etc.  POPE PAUL VI WAS INDEED RIGHT!!!!  SEE THIS LINK:  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

My apologies - it said some of my comments were not posting…
and I see that they did indeed…

Does everyone know of SisterMarie.com ?  She founded Our Lady’s home in Ephesus, Turkey.  It is the only place in the the world where Muslims and Christians pray together ... and in the home of a Jewish mother.  WE NEED UNITY especially during the “signs of the times” that are all around us.

SAD ...  Interesting how Muslims love and venerate Mary whereas our Protestant brothers and sisters only briefly mention her at Christmas since she bore Jesus.

VIEW:  Only People in Heaven Are and Will Be Catholics!

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/search/0/2Dcfj0PU_JQ

JESUS ESTABLISHED ONLY ONE CHURCH PER THE BIBLE

I find it interesting that Jesus chose the sinner Peter to lead His Church - not St. John the Beloved who did everything right (he was the only apostle not martyred).  Jesus knew men would sin - that is why he gave us the sacrament of Reconciliation.

THE EUCHARIST BRINGS CONVERTS HOME:  John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.  60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” ...  66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 SIMON PETER answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Welcome back!

On this, the Second Sunday in Lent, as I prepare for worship, I am reading this story sent to me by a good friend, who himself once considered leaving the Roman Catholic Church. I have been for the last 18 years a Lutheran, brought here from the Presbyterian Church, after reading the writing of the local Lutheran Pastor (and then many months of prayer and reflection). I must say that the “journey and homecoming” in the Lutheran Church was, for me then, what several of you have described in coming to Rome.
But while our local church was was (and is) a joyful place to be—faithful to Scripture and the Confessions—things on the larger level were going terribly wrong. Over several years it became apparent that we were becoming an island in a sea of ELCA apostasy.
But a few years ago, and after several years of prayer and discussion, our church completed the process of becoming a Missouri Synod congregation. What Scott W. described as a member of an ELCA Synod Assembly, I myself witnessed. Were those heartbreaking and politicized statements not so widespread, I would immediately conclude that we had been at the same Upstate New York Assembly.
I think my Catholic friend had meant for me simply to read the article, but actually, I have found the readers’ remarks much more compelling. I would like to thank various people, in addition to Scott W., for your comments: Rev. Bennight, Terry, Charles Horn, Bill McKenzie, Gen, Ted English, Marc Bernstein, Brenda Ridge-Valdivia, and James Townsend. All of you have spoken thoughtfully, some passionately, on a very complex subject.
All of us are seeking truth, and we all need to do so with love. My mother and father became Catholic in later life, and I think about crossing the Tiber often. James Townsend said something that strikes me as very true: “Neuhaus, Klein, Root et al. had (have) a certain temperament which made (makes)the R.C. Church appealing. It’s where they needed (need) to be.” My mother most definitely needed to be there, and perhaps I do too.
But of course, where we all “need to be” is with Christ, and the faithful exist in every Christian church. Many of us have doubts about our own denominations, but we pray that for each seeker the journey will continue in (quoting Rev. Bennight) “a hope that can be sustained as consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Catholic faith.”

“I find it very difficult to take some of the
Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has
been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the
everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the
Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost
arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense.
“The ordinary sensible skeptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the
supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a
procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their
object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high
head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying
scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and
lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all
hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation,
breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up
the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your
croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls
and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.”
“But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to
select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this
one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged
to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was
hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say
that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why
should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the
statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as
reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
that particular creed?
“To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned
by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are
condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part
of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any
standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
- G. K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion

I too, like Scott W., was at the, or maybe more precisely AN, assembly at which we agreed to study the matter of homosexuality and the ordained clergy, relationships, etc.  I was at the Churchwide Assembly in Indianapolis in 2001, and spoke in favor of the motion finally to enter into a process of dialogue “which would lead to a decision at the 2005 Churchwide Assembly.”  How I regret that now, sort of.

I beleived, at the time, that this was such a politically and progressively motivated move by only a PORTION of the whole church, and so I argued for the process (which, by the way, replaced the motion to “begin immediately rostering gays and lesbian pastors in committed relationships” - rostering meaning allowing on the the official list of those ordained)  simply becuase I beleived in my heart that MOST of the good people in the pews had NO IDEA this was actually THE hot-topic of the church at that time (and still is).  I believed, honestly, that once we entered into dialogue with “the people” it would be shut down quickly for the extreme lack of bibilical foundation for it, the fact that it was contrary to the 2000 year teaching of the Church, etc. 

Over the next 5 years I became involved in helping those “conversations” happen.  Turns out I was the token “conservative” on each panel/team gathered to bring these so-called conversations about.  In 2005 and 2007 the decision of the assembly was “NO” but the leadership kept saying “We as a church simply are nto ready for it.”  I deeply became aware of how this topic was THE agenda of the leadership of the church, no matter the biblical reasoning and command of the Word of God.  THIS is what is really the issue at stake—and I’m sorry, those who think the Pope and the Magisterium can and do twist scripture to say what they want it to say are - if this is true which it is not—amateurs compared to the crew out there in the ELCA and other protestant groups these days. 

The political process of most (not all) protestant denominations allows for distortion and corruption of the word and faith precisely because they believe the church has the right to vote on any and all issues before the Church—and the ELCA lutherans themselves certainly have become quite adept at politicking and voting for the “correct” interpretation - correct, that is, in their own eyes.

The kingdom of God is NOT a democracy—it is Christ’s kingdom, and his vicar and bishops are called and given the gift of the Spirit to ensure it remains so and lead the Church faithfully, to remain steadfast even in the midst of the siren songs from the culture.  (granted, not always perfect, but that’s another discussion)

This is why I’m coming home

David, I pray you are not coming home to the same fight!  Welcome!

Bravo David and my Christ’s peace be with you!

...may Christ’s peace…

Thanks for the Chesterton quote, Allen.  If the average person had even half a brain and even half a heart and bothered to read G.K. Chesterton, the average person, and everyone with a whole brain and a whole heart, would be Catholic.  Reading Chesterton and Belloc are as good as it gets!

To Lisa Va- Siter Marie De Mandat Grancy is in the diocesan phase of her canonization process, she was the French nun regarded by the church as the founder of Mary’s House or ” Meryem Ana Evi"at Ephesus in Turkey, beleived to be where Mary live with St. John after the death and resurrection of Jesus and where she was assumed into heaven. Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all visited and prayed at Mary’s House a place of pilgrimage for both Christians and Muslims. Sister Marie had read and been moved by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s ( Mel Gibson used Emmerich’s account for his movie The Passion Of the Christ)account of the life of Mary. Please visit her at www.sistermarie.com

To Lisa Va and all- In Damascus Syria is the Tearing Icon of Our Lady Of Soufanieh where Myrna Nazzour received the stigmata and oil streams from her hands her home is open to everyone it is a place where Christians, Muslims and others go to pray having been there myself, I can honestly tell you it is a very Holy place,  www.soufanieh.com ..Also in Damascus I saw both Christians and Muslims venerating the Tomb of St. John the Baptist in the Omayyad Mosque.  Also in the village of Maaloula where the people still speak Aramaic, many Muslims (especially Iranian Muslims)and Christians prayer together.

Many appear to misunderstand the reason Luther left the Roman church. There are other misinformed statements as well such as where the Bible came from. The Old Testament was already in existence at the time of Christ as it was the Jewish Bible, and the New Testament was written by the apostles and prophets in the first 100 years after Christ. This was before the Roman church and the papacy came into existence as we know it. The supremacy of the Roman church did not occur until several hundred years after Christ.  Therefore it is incorrect to say the Bible came from the Roman church. After Luther posted his 95 theses of errors, he was eventually excommunicated. However, how he left is not as important as why he left. A far more relevant point is that God revealed to Luther through the Holy Scriptures that salvation is not by one’s own efforts or through the church’s sacraments, but is by simple faith in Jesus Christ and what He did for the sinner. This is the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone.  This doctrine is at the heart of biblical/apostolic christianity and gospel and was re-discovered by Luther and other Reformers at the time of the Reformation. This was officially rejected by Rome’s Council of Trent around the 1550s, and as far as I know, is still rejected by Rome today. If one reads Paul’s epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Galatians, and other places in Scripture, it shows salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. “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.” Titus 3:5 “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” Romans 5:1

Mr. Townsend, Christ founded the Lutheran church?  Really?  Fifteen hundred years after His Ascension he decided to establish another church, and one whose doctrines conflict with those of the first Church he established?  That is absurd on it’s face.

Wayne you’re not the magisterium.  The faith alone lie leaves you to be your own pope.  Quite convenient.

I’ve spent enough time with protestants for one day.

Good Sunday to all.

I pray that as ONE BODY, Lutheran converts to Roman Catholicism will have a good impact on us Catholic pew people & our leaders.  Perhaps the Vatican will then be encouraged to TEACH THE BIBLE, in full & in context, implementing appropriate changes, such as those St. Paul suggested to Timothy & Titus, when each were building churches in Ephesus & Crete, and documented so clearly in the New Testament.

Church membership does not save anyone.  What saves us sinners is the Blood of Christ.  What is critical is that we are IN His Body 24/7 & 365 days a year until our death, not just being seen in any given church on Sunday for an hour doing our duty, be it Catholic duty, Lutheran duty, or non-denominational Christian duty.  It is a lifestyle, not a duty.

Faith is all about being in relationship with a holy & Triune Godhead.  It is 100% commmittment to Him, and growing day by day to be more like Jesus.  Faith is not about religion.

Luther did what he had to do at that corrupt time in church history.  Thanks be to God for the Reformation.  We need another one.  We all need to get back to the basics.  We are called to be One Body, with Christ as our Head.  All other people, popes included, just have ROLES to play.

@WayneM
Please tell me what book in the New Testament was written by a prophet?
If you examine the history Wayne, instead of listening to uninformed people you will find that there is a great deal of evidence that the supremacy of Rome was fairly early on. And if you read the Early Church Fathers you will find that the name Catholic was used by the year 110. It sounds as if you have just been listening to one particular side of the issue. There are many wonderful sites that explain Catholic teaching that may help you clarify things. You are rather misinformed. One such site is catholic.com.

Cephas
“please tell me what book in the New Testamenet was written by a prophet?”
The word prophet simply means “1 teacher or interpreter of the supposed will of God”—from Oxford dictionary of Current English. There is nothing untoward with saying the New Testament books were written by prophets. But it is vitally important to remember they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “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 ch1 vs21. The apostles (or prophets) who wrote the New Testament were especially chosen for this task and none have existed since to add new revelation to what God has already given us in the New Testament, regardless of what you may have been told. These writers were authenticated by signs and wonders, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. (see Hebrews ch2 vs4) and had been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ or who had known someone who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. (Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” 2 Corinthians ch12 vs12 ) Who since the apostolic age can claim to have these credentials?  Regards.

@Wayne: The true doctrine of justification is that if we have FAITH (believing that Christ is who He says He is and can do EVERYTHING He says He can do) we will be restored to a relationship with God and will live by GRACE.  Grace will help us conquer sin and lead us to greater love and closeness to God.  The sinner will repent of his sin and God will give grace to overcome sin.  The sinner will be so sorry for his sin that he will atone for it.  What the modern version of “justification” seems to miss is that it does not mean we continue in sin and Jesus lets us come to heaven anyway because He exists.  It does not mean sin is now ok because Jesus repented for everyone. Real believing means knowing that Jesus is greater than ANY sin and turning to Him when we are tempted or need to repent WILL result in victory over sin - that is true faith and those who live that will be with Christ in heaven if they persevere to the end.

@Wayne
So, regarding Peter and Paul, James and John etc. you would prefer to call prophets and not Apostles? Interesting. They were also brothers to other men. Why not call them brothers, or uncles, cousins etc. I don’t have many exceptions to whatever else you have written other than your understanding of Catholicism is really lacking. You wrote “who wrote the New Testament were especially chosen for this task and none have existed since to add new revelation to what God has already given us in the New Testament, regardless of what you may have been told.” What is it you think I’ve been told?

Through the study of Scripture and the Church Fathers, we see that, not only is the Catholic faith biblical, Catholicism is Bible Christianity par excellence. Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord’s body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God’s Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus’ flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6). By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).

“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.

Cephas,
“So, regarding Peter and Paul, James and John etc. you would prefer to call prophets and not Apostles?”

No. I did not say that. Those who were Apostles I would prefer to call Apostles. Not every New Testament book was written by an Apostle. For example, Luke who wrote the Gospel of the same name was not an apostle. James who wrote the epistle of James was not the apostle James, but is believed to be a half brother of Jesus, according to the flesh.  Jude is also believed to be a half-brother of Jesus, and he was not an apostle but wrote the epistle of Jude.

@Wayne
I’m glad to hear that while Luke was not an Apostle he would be considered a prophet by you. I’m sure he would be very pleased to hear that.
You wrote “who wrote the New Testament were especially chosen for this task and none have existed since to add new revelation to what God has already given us in the New Testament, regardless of what you may have been told.” What is it you think I’ve been told?

Hi Pam,
“The sinner will be so sorry for his sin that he will atone for it.”

Pam, it is not possible for mankind to atone for his sin. That is why God sent his only begotten Son to die for the sins of His people. If it were possible for anyone to atone for their own sins, there would be no need for the Saviour. “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;” 1 Corinthians ch15 vs3.  Knowing we cannot atone for our own sin, we turn to Christ as our only Saviour and redeemer and trust in His blood as a complete atonement for sin. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans ch5 vs8 The believer who trusts in Christ as his only Saviour has the righteousness of God imputed to him (this is justification) and is justified. “Even the rightousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans ch3 vs22,23 This righteousness is imputed to the sinner by faith in Jesus Christ. Justification may also be thought of as a sinner believing that Jesus made a complete atonement by the shedding of His blood for that person. The sinner although not holy in and of himself, receives the imputed righteousness of God and is justified in the sight of God. When God looks at that person, he no longer sees his sin, but see the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. Christ has in effect taken the sin on Himself at the cross and removed the guilt from the sinner who believes in Christ as Saviour.—in christian love.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is hardly a “landslide” of Lutherans running to Rome.

There are nearly 4 million Lutherans in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and over 2 million Lutherans in the Missouri Synod.

The Society of the Holy Trinity you mention has, maybe, 300 members with some small congregations.

Yes, there is some transfer to Rome, but there are just as many Romans becoming Lutherans.

After this trickle of Lutheran converts, the well will run dry.

Cephas,
I’m not sure what your point is about prophets and not sure what you would call Luke. He was a very learned man and doctor and chosen by God to write the Gospel of Luke.

Wayne, We do penance,is that not atoning?  We do not attain heaven by our own works or sacrifice, but as Jesus said to the Apostles when he spoke about how hard it was for a rich man to get to heaven, for man it is impossible, but not for God. It is because man on his own could not turn away from sin, but with GOD’S GRACE it becomes possible. In this sense men atone by turning away from sin and toward God and His grace!  Of course we needed the savior Jesus Christ to atone for the fall, but we do not rest in our sin.  Jesus admonished us to take up our cross. He said when He returned to the Father His followers would fast then. The Jewish people still have a day of atonement and Christians follow lenten practice. But most importantly what Jesus brought to us was a reunion with the Father that brought us back to His GRACE and through this GRACE all sin can be overcome.  The letters of the Apostles all speak about holding on to this grace and I have personally experienced it so I know it is REAL and it is a gift that allows the conversion, the turning away from sin.

My favorite bible is the CATHOLIC ANSWERS BIBLE.  It contains 88 questions commonly asked of Catholics and the biblical references for those beliefs.  Since it is the complete bible, Protestants can also see the 7 books of the bible that they are missing.
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/dates.html#66
FROM THE LINK ABOVE:
“Again, why does every Bible without exception before Martin Luther have 73 inspired books?
By what right and under whose power did Luther removed Scripture from Scripture? Does not the Holy Bible caution:

“I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in the prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” Rev. 22:18-19

Test this as the Holy Bible commands.
“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ’s early Church, no matter where it leads me and no matter what it costs me. Do you?”

Several comments came very close to explaining the real reason to be a Catholic.
It is in the intimacy and tender love Christ shares of Himself to those in Adoration rooms and in the Eucharist.
There is simply no way we mortals can create or possess this Divine Being and Divine tenderness by our own power. Learning to recognize Christ in others is to deeply understand the frailty and insecurities inherent in the human condition. Christ in His deep tenderness in His Divine Presence of the Eucharist reveals His own great humility and tenderness upon the adoring human lover who loves Him with the Love dispensed by Him in Adoration.
There is no way to duplicate this by any human power, for as much as we like to think we possess love, it is but a shadow of the love that flows from His Being. Next to this, all the arguments sound harsh and hold not a candle to His Being. We cannot talk ourselves into a state which is Him. It can only be known in His presence.

As for Wayne, please read the bottom of the Wikipedia page on Ignatius of Antioch, a student of Peter’s who was thrown to the lions in 103AD. There is no excuse for the myth that the church began hundreds of years later. Such is simply not true. Here’s a sampling of the saints words on the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

The Journey Home on EWTN is a wonderful show showing conversion stories TO the Catholic faith.  Everyone always speaks so wonderfully of their birth faith, their families, etc.  This show is very uplifting!

http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/journeyhome.asp

Sean Farrell,
“There is no excuse for the myth that the church began hundreds of years later. Such is simply not true. Here’s a sampling of the saints words on the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch”
There is nothing in this reference in wikipedia to prove that the Roman church was the only church or leading church in the apostolic age or immediately after. An examination of the New Testament epistles which the apostle Paul wrote show he wrote epistles to the churches in various locations. Their was no pope mentioned and no supremacy of Rome over the other churches mentioned. There were presbyters (ministers) and bishops in various churches. There certainly was a church of Christ which was composed of the various local churches which the epistles were addressed to. But there is no evidence that the church in Rome was the only church or that it exercised authority over the other local churches. Paul addressed a letter to the church at Rome (epistle to the Romans), but he also addressed epistles to other churches such as the Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, and Colossians.  These were simply churches in each of those locations. There is no evidence they were RCC churches.

Wayne
I would suggest (actually this is the second time I’m suggesting it) that
you look at some Catholic sources which give the answers to your questions.
It is quite obvious that you are reading limited sources.
I’ve already explained above that Ignatius of Antioch call the church Catholic in AD 110
and his use of it indicates that the usage was well known at the time.

http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

I don’t understand why you are gushing over a small handful of Lutheran theologians converting to Catholicism.  If you are familiar with modern Lutheran history you will understand that it is our theologians who are the most apostate while it has generally been the well-grounded conservative laity that has resolved the struggles of the synods.  When you receive a breakawayLutheran theologian in your midst you are only asking for trouble.  He comes with an agenda.

Wayne, When there was an issue of whether or not the gentiles had to follow all Jewish law Paul and Barnabas went to Peter to discuss and decide the matter.  He did seek him out to be sure he was hearing the Holy Spirit correctly.

“I don’t even know where to begin with that.  Of course there was never a Pope who added a word to sacred Scripture because the Pope could interpret it however the Pope wished.  Also, when Scripture is obscured and hidden from the people, the hierarchy can say whatever they wish to say about true interpretation of the Bible.”

Rev. Lee.

Luther took out books from the Bible. The Protestants interpet the Bible anyhow they wish. Sola Scriptura leads to either relativism or fundamentalism.

We stand on Scripture, tradition and reason.

Cephas,
“I would suggest (actually this is the second time I’m suggesting it) that
you look at some Catholic sources which give the answers to your questions.
It is quite obvious that you are reading limited sources.
I’ve already explained above that Ignatius of Antioch call the church Catholic in AD 110
and his use of it indicates that the usage was well known at the time.”

I did look at your referencee you gave about Ignatius on Wikipedia.  I am not disputing whether or not Ignatius or anyone used the word “catholic”.  The word “catholic” simply means universal.  My question is how does the use of the word “catholic” prove the Roman Catholic church was the preeminent church with authority above all other local churches in the early centuries?  If the word “catholic” was used around 100 A.D. as a general reference to any christian, what does it prove? I believe it simply refers to christians whereever and whatever church or denomination they might be in.  In the first centuries there were no denominations. But there were local independent churches as the epistles show.  I think possibly we have a misunderstanding of terms. I am not sure what you are trying to show by refering me to Ignatius.  Also, the article on him says his writings were tampered with. Therefore how reliable can they be?

Pam,
“Wayne, When there was an issue of whether or not the gentiles had to follow all Jewish law Paul and Barnabas went to Peter to discuss and decide the matter.  He did seek him out to be sure he was hearing the Holy Spirit correctly.”
At the council of the church at Jerusalem described in Acts ch15, where Peter was present and took part in the discussion, who summarized the meeting and announced what should be done? Why did the Apostle Paul rebuke Peter in Galatians ch2 and say he was to blamed if Peter was a pope? How could Peter have been in such serious error that he needed to be rebuked by Paul if he was a pope?  Does this rebuke in ch2 sound like Paul was going to Peter to have Peter decide the matter?

Wayne
I don’t know if you’re skirting the issue on purpose or not. I invited you to look up what the Catholic Church teaches from a reliable source and when you repeated your misunderstanding again I provided you with a link

http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

If there were no denominations and Ignatius used the term Catholic, he was doing that to show the difference between the Orthodox believers and those who were not. The letters of Ignatius are reputable and are used for historical and theological understanding by scholars of every denomination.

savvy,
“Luther took out books from the Bible. The Protestants interpet the Bible anyhow they wish. Sola Scriptura leads to either relativism or fundamentalism.”
Actually Luther did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. These books were never quoted from by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament. I have read that Jerome was very reluctant to include them in his Latin Vulgate, which was the latin translation of the Bible of the RCC for most of RC church history. He apparently never considered them as inspired.

Rich
“I don’t understand why you are gushing over a small handful of Lutheran theologians converting to Catholicism.”
I am not exactly gushing. The article calls it a “landslide.” As you know a landslide usually begins small and grows. The author was saying that back in the 90’s it began and it appears that more are converting. I am very happy about their conversions because of the prayer of Jesus in John 17.

Wayne,

Jesus and the Apostles totally quoted from these books. If they were good enough for them, they can be good enough for us.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

Wayne,

Yes the letters of Ignatius are a good starting point for you. In the early church all theological disputes were solved by a recognized Apostolic authority.

Cephas,
“I don’t know if you’re skirting the issue on purpose or not. I invited you to look up what the Catholic Church teaches from a reliable source and when you repeated your misunderstanding again I provided you with a link

http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp”
I am not “skirting” an issue.  I looked at your link. I understand the position of the RCC. It relies heavily on what it says the early church fathers said.  What the early church fathers wrote is not inspired Scripture and therefore is not the word of God. One reference you gave to Wikipedia on Ignatius said something about his writings having been tampered with. Again this shows they are not reliable. I have also heard early church fathers did not always agree with each other. There were major disputes in the early centuries. That is why church councils were called to settle the questions of heresy. One major heresy was the Arian heresy. This was settled by early church councils. However, I believe it all comes down to what the Holy Scripture says because that is the only infallible source of truth.  Check what Jesus said. “And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” Luke ch8 vs20,21.  If you would rather trust early church “fathers” that is your choice. I prefer to trust God’s inspired Word. Remember the warning of the apostle Peter. “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” 2 Peter ch2 vs1,2. After the apostolic age, there were major disagreements and heresies. This is what the apostle Peter was warning about. That is why the Holy Scriptures are the only sure and safe source of truth.

Hello Wayne,

Since you believe the Early Church Fathers’ decisions on the Old Testament were wrong, as they included the Apocrypha, how then can you trust the canon of the New Testament decided upon by the same Church?

Luther wanted to throw out the book of Hebrews also, and called it an “epistle of straw”; he didn’t like James either- you know, the “Faith without works” problem.

Do you think the books of Hebrews and James should be thrown out of the canon also?

Wayne,

Sola Scriptura leads to either relativism or fundamentalism. If you can read Marxism one day into the Bible, you can read Fascism the next day.

The Catholic church compiled the Bible. How would you otherwise know what books should be in the Bible?

Nobody could actually own a Bible before the invention of the printing press. And even after that the canon of the Bible was still in dispute until the Council of Florence. This was a 100 years before the Reformation.

Therefore Sola Scriptura did not exist in Christianity.

I am not saying the Bible is not the word of God, but that it is not the only authority.

In the incarnation, God became man and entered our time, space and took on our matter, sanctifying these things. We need to look at God’s working through the objective world and not subjective thought.

Subjectivism leads to re-constructing gender, and the world of form and matter. This is an attempt to escape reality.

In Catholicism the sacraments and the liturgy are profoundly linked to the incarnation.

Wayne
St Ignatius said that the church consisted of bishops, priests and deacons.  He also said that if you do not believe in the Real Presence you would not be raised in Christ at the final judgement.

liseax,

Can you give some examples of where Jesus or the Apostles quoted from the Apocrypha?  There are many examples of where they quoted or made reference to verses of the Old Testament which were not part of the Apocrypha. Why did they not quote from the Apocrypha?  Why was the Apocrypha not included in the Jewish Old Testament?  I believe it was included in the Septuagint which as you know was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures, but I do not think Jesus or the Apostles considered it as inspired Scripture because they did not quote from it. Can you prove otherwise?

Robb 76,

“St Ignatius said that the church consisted of bishops, priests and deacons.”
I am not sure why you made that statement because I agree with you that there were bishops, presbyters (ministers or elders) in the New Testament churches.  That is what the New Testament teaches. Do you have anything in the New Testament to back up your claim about believing in a “Real Presence” and being raised in the last judgment?

savvy,
“The Catholic church compiled the Bible. How would you otherwise know what books should be in the Bible?”
When you say the “Catholic” church, do you mean the Roman Catholic church. The church (catholic or universal) in the first few centuries did in fact determine what was inspired Holy Scripture (canon of Scripture). However in these early centuries the church comprised various local churches such as the churches which the apostle Paul addressed his epistles to.  There was no one local church, such as the RCC, which claimed authority over or accepted by the local churches as the supreme church in the first centuries.  The papacy and claimed authority of Rome did not come into being until centuries later.  Therefore it was the early christians, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which determined what was the canon of Scripture, not the Roman church.  If you can find any evidence in the New Testament which teaches anything different, please give the references.

liseax,

“Do you think the books of Hebrews and James should be thrown out of the canon also?”
I don’t consider Luther as infallible. Hebrews and James have been accepted as Holy Scripture down through the ages and that is why they are included in the Bible.

I have my trusty Roman Catholic Youth Study Bible AND I have several non-Catholic (Protestant) Bibles - and Hebrews and James is in all of them.  If I were Luther, I’d want Maccabees tossed out too (and the few others from the Old Testament) because the Vatican was using bits and pieces of these books for DOCTRINE.  While they are good for history, and even for good living examples, they ought not be taken out of context and used for doctrine - such as Purgatory and praying for salvation for deceased people.  Whenever fellow Catholics use those books to defend a practice, I ask, “So what else do you have from the New Testament?”  Catholics have one foot in the Old Testament and one foot in the New Testament.  If only we’d concentrate on the New Testament, and Paul’s letters, even Peter’s letters.

Throughout history heretics have died for the right to be wrong. They do so today by living the right to be send wrong comments. 
Otto

Wayne,

At the council of Rome Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches. Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

This was in 382 A.D.

How could a Pope do this at a council in Rome, when you claim Roman Catholics did not exist?

Born Again Cradle Catholic,

Nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

In the Eastern churches this is called the final theosis. A state of purification before one enters heaven.

you people are so strange you act as if there is only two -protestant or catholic what about the Armenian church the Greek orthodox the north African etc when Rome took over the church lots of bits continued without them are you saying their wrong, who are you to say this, just a scripture for us ALL TO PONDER “Depart from me I never knew you” It’s about personal relationship with Christ millions of people go to churches of all denominations but do not want to die to self and truly know Christ it’s nice and comfortable to say my church is right but only God can say who are the faithful some will have never been to church because there is no church where they are (you should read muslim testimonies of Christ appearing to them and teaching them how to be faithful where there is no church) He will come for His own of every tribe tongue and nation (His words) so stop judging and concentrate on YOUR relationship with Christ work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Grace,

There are Eastern Catholic churches in union with Rome. The Eastern Orthodox were part of the same universal church until the schism took place.

They are valid Apostolic churches and therefore true.

A church is one with Apostolic succession.

Protestants do not want a church, because they just want to make it up as they go along.

Grace,

I do not deny that the Muslims without an access to a church cannot be saved. They have received the baptism of desire.

This is a discussion on a different subject.

I meant these Muslims you describe can be saved.

http://scripturecatholic.com/index.html

Hello Wayne,

You state, “Hebrews and James have been accepted as Holy Scripture down through the ages and that is why they are included in the Bible.” 

One can apply the same reasoning to accepting the 7 books Luther threw out. These 7 books were accepted down through the ages, and that is why you should accept them.

Luther was fallible!

Plus, can’t you see that he threw them out because they contained teaching that didn’t concur with his new teaching?

@Born Again Cradle Catholic The Old Testament FORESHADOWS the New Testament - we need both.  Arch of the Covenant> Mary’s womb, Manna in the desert>The Eucharist, Woman in Genesis>Woman at Cana first Miracle/Cross/Rev 12 - all are our Blessed Mother.

Again, pick up the CATHOLIC ANSWERS BIBLE - 88 questions commonly asked of Catholics.  Your eyes will be opened as there are biblical references.  The Magesterium of the Catholic Church leads it via the Holy Spirit.  THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, founded by Jesus, WILL NOT BE DEFEATED AS IT STANDS FOR HIS TRUTH.  That is why it is always under attack!

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”  ~ Matthew 16:17-19

I left the Catholic Church for 35yrs. There was no where else to go but HOME TO ROME!!!My life has never been richer,fuller,more joyful and with deep spiritual peace.What an awesome place to be…in the Church that Christ gave us!!I am humbled yet proud to say…Iam a Catholic….worts and all!!
Cathy

Savvy, you wrote: “Nothing unclean can enter heaven.” 

Cradle’s reply:
Do you have the Holy Spirit in you right now?  And if so, do you take the Holy Spirit to Purgatory with you?  Is the Holy Spirit “unclean”?

To Lisa in VA - You wrote: “Rev 12 - all are our Blessed Mother”

Cradle’s reply-
I disagree that Mary is the woman in Revelation.  The woman in Revelation is Israel; from her, Jesus was born.  Mary does not become pregnant with Jesus again, and give birth to Him again.  It’s a metaphore.

Will you try reading Revelation again & when you see the woman mentioned, think Israel.  It will make perfect sense, more sense really, as Jesus will come in victory then, and not as a baby.

“A woman”... The church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady. The church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she has the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet: and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. The church is the new Israel, with the old being fulfilled in Christ.

@Wayne M.  Paul knew he was an Apostle and called himself the least of them, given his Apostleship in an extraordinary way.  Paul talks about chastising what he perceives as Peter’s hypocrisy because Peter ate with the Gentile’s until the Jewish delegation arrived and then Peter ate with the Jews.  We see from this Paul’s personality, but we don’t get Peter’s side of the story.  Paul may have been right or he may have overreacted.  Peter may have had a good motive in eating with the Jews so as not to unsettle their new faith.  We just don’t know.  But yes I believe Paul was not positive about the answer and wanted verification.  He knew Peter, James and John were closest to Jesus and he made his case before them.  None of the Apostles made the decision, they understood the will of the Holy Spirit and followed it.  The Holy Spirit was with them in a tangible way they could understand.  The Catholic faith has seen Peter as the rock and foundation and therefore the leader of the Apostles because Peter was the one the Father chose to reveal that Jesus was “The Christ”. Further, John showed deference to him when they both ran to the tomb to see if what Mary Magdalene said was true about Jesus rising. John knelt at the front of the tomb and waited for Peter to go in first.  Also, Jesus told Peter he would be sifted like wheat and told him that when he regained his faith HE must strengthen the others.  And Jesus also commisioned him when they had the fish by the lake and He asked Peter if he loved Him three times to make up for his denials. He asked him to “feed my sheep”.  Peter was also the one to stay in Jerusalem and carry on Jesus’ role of converting the Israelites while many of the other Apostles left for foreign lands. So there’s lots of support for his preeminence. Pray to God to be open to the truth and ask for the truth and He will lead you to it.

Pam,
Thank you for the detailed reply. I see you have gone into this in some depth. I would like to examine the scriptures related to your comments. Please give the chapter and verses which you are referring to in every statement so I can find them. It is difficult to deal with if there are no chap or verses to consider. Thanks.

The Catholic Church teaches the words of Paul on works exactly as the Protestants do, although some preachers may claim otherwise. The difference lies in how the Church esteems our Lord’s words in Matthew 25:33-40, where Jesus Himself shows how highly He esteems the corporal works of mercy; You can have this kingdom, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat, etc.  Likewise, Jesus prayed for the sanctification of the apostles in the Garden and this is a spiritual work of mercy. All people are required to deepen their humanity and conscience from which the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are moved to respond. The Church is a gift to mankind whereby human pride is confronted more deeply in the sacraments than say, outside and from a distance where one congratulates themselves on their goodness, or perhaps theological brilliance while judging those inside. Lucky are those who have overcome such pride and have taken their place among the long line of ordinary souls collected by Our Lord and brought more intimately to Him over the centuries as they’ve struggled through this lifetime. Christianity will be united when the Lord’s love and real Being is esteemed by His followers over themselves. Matthew 16:25, Whoever loses his life for me shall save it.

Wayne,

I became a Catholic 7 years ago after I realized the Jesus established His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 

Unified in Body and Form
Mark 3:24-25 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Romans Chapter 12:4-5 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

Romans 16:17-18 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.  For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.  My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.  What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas “; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

Ephesians 4:1-6 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Titus 3:1-11 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good… But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Philippians 1: 27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel,

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
 
The Church Proclaims One Faith, One Truth; Is of One Mind; Holds to One Doctrine

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Philippians 2:1-2 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.  Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Galations 1: 6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

1 Timothy 1:3-7 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. 

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

1 Tmothy 6:3-5 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been
taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Titus 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

2 Peter 3:15-17 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

The Church has One Head – Jesus Christ, our Heavenly King, who designates ONE leader on earth, the Key-Holder (or Royal Steward) to shepherd His flock.

Jesus is the Head of His Church, the mystical Body of Christ…

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1:18 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Jesus, son of David, our Heavenly King

Matthew 1:1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Matthew 20:30 Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”

Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,

Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches…. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Jesus, Our King Designates One Apostle, Simon Peter as Key-Holder

Matthew 16:15-19 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah 22 Defines the Office of Key-Holder—the King’s Solitary Royal Steward

Isaiah 22:15-22 This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: “Go, say to this steward, to Shebna, who is in charge of the palace… I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position. “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.  I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Jesus is Our Shepherd, the Church is His Flock

John 10:2-16 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.  The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.  When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice… “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep…and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.”

Hebrews 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep…

1 Peter 2:25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls…

Jesus asks Peter to be a Shepherd for His Flock

John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16: A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17: He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Once I did my research I discovered Sola Scriptura is not logical, scriptural or historical. Sola Scriptura guarantees disunity or relativism or both… which is the state of modern Protestant Christianity.

Sola Scriptura - the whole concept is so funny that I am not sure how can anybody argue for it. I once asked my protestant friend to discuss Bible, so I picked a random book (not a Bible) and handed it to him: “Here is the Bible”. Obviously he protested that it was not a Bible. I asked him how did he knew that was not a Bible ... from church ... “Do you mean you follow your church tradition?” There is no Bible without tradition, at the minimum everybody has to recognize that the content of Bible is based on tradition (be it Lutheran tradition or Catholic tradition). And if one tradition is important and infallible why not other?

Speaking of infallibility - Lutheran Bible must be based on Luther’s infallibility ...  otherwise you guys better start reviewing what should and should not be in the Bible.

Pam,
“Paul talks about chastising what he perceives as Peter’s hypocrisy because Peter ate with the Gentile’s until the Jewish delegation arrived and then Peter ate with the Jews.  We see from this Paul’s personality, but we don’t get Peter’s side of the story.  Paul may have been right or he may have overreacted.”

I don’t think we can say Paul over-reacted.  Paul wrote this in his epistle to the Galatians in order to teach us something, i.e. that Peter was in serious error and needed to be rebuked. Paul was chosen by God as an Apostle and was writing under the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  He did not write something to tell us he overreacted. What would be the sense in that? That would cast doubt on everything he did and said which would make absolutely no sense. It would throw his whole credibility into doubt. Therefore that cannot be a valid interpretation.
Paul said “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Galatians 2:11 Paul rebuked Peter in the presence of them all because “they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” Galatians ch2:14 Further down Paul told Peter the error of Peter’s Jewish legalism when he said “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:16 Here Paul is making it clear that Peter’s error was very serious as it was contrary to the gospel of justification by faith. These verses demonstrate that Paul had a far greater understanding of the gospel and justification by faith at this point in time.  This rebuke of Peter’s serious error demonstrates that Paul was by far a leading apostle and Peter was in need of serious rebuke and correction. Hardly the qualifications of one who was said to be the Vicar of Christ or a Pope.

Gabe,
“Sola Scriptura - the whole concept is so funny that I am not sure how can anybody argue for it.”
Jesus and the Apostles teach God’s Word is infallible and to be taken with the utmost gravity and seriousness. When Jesus prayed to the Father, He said “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17 The Apostle John wrote “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” 1 John 4:6 Here the apostle John is saying we (the apostles) are of God and those who hear us (the New Testament writings of the apostles is what we have) are those who know God; and those who are not of God do not hear what the Apostles have said (Holy Scriptures). God has spoken to man through his Apostles and Prophets who wrote Holy Scripture. There is nothing of any higher authority than what God has spoken.

To Tim Cooper, well done. Sola Sciptura distorts the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity by placing faith above love and dismissing hope. Since God is love, Paul understood it was the most important. Faith and hope are gifts to humanity from God and proceed from Him as they imply trust. Love implies two and trust between the two. In no place in the Bible does it say that declaring our salvation is a prerequisite to salvation.
Yes, Paul does say in Romans 10:13, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Paul adds, Romans 10:9, if you professes with mouth, “Jesus is Lord” and believe your heart
that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Yes, we believe that too as that statement makes it clear there is a qualification of belief. Paul goes on in 10:10, For it is with your heart that we believe… But we Catholics also believe Romans 11:18 -21 Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.  Yes, Paul does specifically say that salvation can be lost through arrogance in this statement. It is not a requirement that all become theologians to be saved either, but to overcome one’s self importance in adoration and develop our conscience and our humanity through the teachings of Jesus. Thus, faith, hope and charity.

Beloved in the Lord: With the rather “hostile” tone of many of the Roman Catholic postings, it is obvious that their authors, certainly sincere people and part of the Good Shepherd’s flock, are religiously insecure individuals whether they recognize this fact or not.  May I suggest that you folks just relax and calm down.  God loves you just as much as He loves the Lutherans.  Learn to revel in the Good News and stop worrying about what your neighbor is or is not doing with regard to his or her spiritual life.  Be like the Lutherans at least in the sense of resting secure in the arms of God’s love!  When Lutherans become Catholics, praise the Lord.  When Catholics become Lutherans, praise the Lord again. In Xto, James E. Townsend, Lutheran minister, retired

Dear Rev. Townsend, Isn’t it ironic how many times we are challenged with the
question,“ Are you certain of your salvation?” Yet it says nowhere in the bible that declaring the
certainty in one’s salvation is a prerequisite for salvation. I remember leaving a Mass in Central Park
of John Paul II and there draped across and entire building was a banner reading !@#$% Of Babylon
and young people screaming the most idiotic of things. I asked a young girl of about 22. Which is the seat the
anti-christ is to take? She said the Catholic Church. I answered yes, that is true and why would he want to do that if it was not the seat of truth? Why wouldn’t he want to take the seat of your church? I can thank the many evangelicals of every denomination for warning me upon becoming a believer, that what ever I did, don’t go back to the Catholic Church. They have since said the same thing many times and devote themselves to saving me from the idolatry of the Eucharist and continually have challenged my peace you think we have no right to defend the Eucharist and the sacraments? I imagine you think all that is just good fun. I can assure you it is a major drag. Christ’s peace be with you too.

This is from a friend of mine whose father and grandfather were Baptist ministers.  She always felt like “something” was missing and found it in the Eucharist:

We need to remember that the one of the beauties of the Catholic faith is the teaching that ALL the writings, both scripture and those of the Early Church Father’s were Divinely inspired. Even the writing of the Holy Father in this era, and those down through the centuries were and are inspired by God. The way to tell inspired scripture is not that is refers to previous writings, (reference Jermone’s criteria), but that it CONFIRMS that which was already written. The Word of God, and words inspired by God never conflict but only confirm what is already written. That being the case, the 7 books have their legitimate place in our Bible. I noticed some time ago that the seven books all had stories of heroic women. The deletion of the seven books rather coincides with the stigma regarding Mary that was developed by the Protestants much much after the Reformation. (in the 1800’s). it had to do with the oppression of women and a wish to hide their part in the formation of Judaism and the resultant Christian faith. Men of that era did not want to acknowledge the spiritual power of women. (note Jesus had no problem with this whatsoever - his best apostles were women). St Paul didn’t either. He had Dorcas and another woman heads over churches. 

Other then the Eucharist, the main reason I became Catholic was because of the written preservation of the faith.

That’s my rant for the day!
Linda

The Journey Home on EWTN is a wonderful show showing conversion stories TO the Catholic faith.  Everyone always speaks so wonderfully of their birth faith, their families, etc.  This show is very uplifting!

http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/journeyhome.asp

Via the archived shows, you can find specific religion that interests you in particular.  They have everything!

“We need to remember that the one of the beauties of the Catholic faith is the teaching that ALL the writings, both scripture and those of the Early Church Father’s were Divinely inspired. Even the writing of the Holy Father in this era, and those down through the centuries were and are inspired by God.”
I have not heard that before. I am not certain the RCC even claims that. I am curious as to how one would be able to know that. I have always understood the Bible was inspired and this is accepted by both Protestants and the RCC as true. The Bible itself teaches that and demonstrates by it’s contents that it is inspired. Which books of the Bible are inspired was determined by the early church as they were led by the Holy Spirit. Books which were not considered as inspired were rejected as being simply the writings of men and were not included in the canon of Scripture. If we now accept all these writings of early church fathers and other writings, apart from the Bible, as inspired, what then is to be considered as the canon of Scripture? If some writings of men conflict with what the Bible says, which is to accepted as true?

WayneM: What is Bible? You quote John - how am I to know that is part of the Bible? Tradition! Can there be Church without Bible? Before Bible (I should say before New Testament) was written down there was already Church. Do you deny this simple fact? If Sola Scriptura is such central concept how come Church existed before the scriptures were finalized? Was Church living without any authority before?

>There is nothing of any higher authority than what God has spoken.

Well, accordingly to you Martin Luther has higher authority as he could toss out stuff from the Bible. I guess Martin Luther is the prophet you are speaking of and he better be infallible otherwise your believes are a house built on sand.

So hundreds of years of Church tradition against a word of one fallible man. Does not look like difficult choice to me. There is no Bible without tradition. As I said before: if I hand you any random book how do you know it is Bible? Tradition! Your highest authority is Lutheran tradition. My highest authority is Church. Again - hundreds of years of Church tradition vs. one guy who came 1500 years too late.

>If some writings of men conflict with what the Bible says, which is to accepted as true?

If you believe in Sola Scriptura the solution is to start a new church.

@ Bill McKenzie: “The Catholic Church is true, not perfect, and is the saint-making machine given to us by Jesus Christ.” I just want to add, the Church is not a machine but a saint-raising Mother. A Holy Mother, that is. Not a machine, no one’s sainthood is assured or cranked out with a money back guarantee. But saints are nourished, reared, educated, nursed and treated there. She’s more of a hospital for the sick than any kind of machine. And we are all of us wounded with the sickness of sin, in need of God’s Mercy and Forgiveness and the strength and food we need and receive in the sacraments of the Church. Christ’s own Church. Peace be with you, all of you, reading these words.

Gabe,
“What is Bible? You quote John - how am I to know that is part of the Bible?”
If you have a Bible, look in it and you will find 1 John, 2 John and 3 John toward the end of the New Testament. Therefore it is part of the Bible which you have.  It is in both RC Bibles and Protestant Bibles so there is no question as to whether it should be there.
“Can there be Church without Bible?” The church is built upon the teachings which come from the Bible. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” Ephesians ch.2 vs19, 20. From these verses, would you agree the church is built upon the teaching of the apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ? Their teachings are recorded in the Bible.
“Before Bible (I should say before New Testament) was written down there was already Church. Do you deny this simple fact? If Sola Scriptura is such central concept how come Church existed before the scriptures were finalized? Was Church living without any authority before?” The apostolic church did exist before the New Testament was written down. The church existed at that time because the apostles were given the authority to teach God’s revelation before it was written down as Holy Scripture.  They also had the Old Testament Scripture from which Jesus and the Apostles quoted. There are many examples in the New Testament where Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament.  So the church in the apostolic age had the authority of Apostles who actually lived at that time. Men were also ordained to be ministers, elders, bishops, and teachers during the apostolic age and later.  I never said Martin Luther was a prophet and the church is not built on what he said. He was a very gifted teacher and Reformer, but was not infallible. Christians are believers and followers of Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther or any other man. You are mistaken if you have that idea. Jesus is the only head of the true church and it is built on Him.

The word was made flesh.

To all those sweet, beautiful people who answered me. Wow, I must have hit a hornet’s nest. I have faith that Jesus existed, and I’m sure that at least most of you have this same faith.

I also have profound faith in Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus is God. I believe that Jesus is infallible, and that He founded an infallible church, and that He protects it from falling apart. Why else would Jesus establish a church if it is going to fall apart and to teach error? It doesn’t make sense.

The truth and only the truth from an errorless church can lead you infallibly to heaven. Sorry, but errors cannot lead you to heaven. If anything, errors can lead you to hell.

There are many errors in contradictions. It follows that since there are many errors in contradictions, and if you are embracing these errors found in contradictions, then, you are in trouble.

So, I’ll stay with the errorless church that Jesus founded. Incidentally, the Holy Catholic Church teaches that it is infallible in ONLY faith and morals. If the Holy Catholic Church is the ONLY church that teaches that it’s infallible, and if there is an infallible church, then, by that very fact, it is the Holy Catholic Church that is infallible.

If Jesus is infallible, why can’t Jesus lead His Chruch infallibly? I HAVE PROFOUND FAITH THAT JESUS CAN DO THESE THINGS.

P.S. Sorry, but Jesus isn’t leading contradictory sects since Jesus cannot contradict Himself. I’ll stick with the successor of Saint Peter, that fellow who is carrying the “keys to the Kingdom.” May God bless you. I love you profoundly.

Rev. Towsend,

Insecure?  Hmmmm.  Let me tell you my faith journey.  I can tell you about insecurity.  I bounced around from one denomination to another for 46 years before I became a Catholic.  I never found security in the idea of Sola Scriptura.
My girlfriend of 4 years was a daughter of an ELCA minister and I went to church with her family.  My parents were Nazarene and today are Methodist.  My nephew is a 5 point Calvinist Baptist minister.  My brother is an elder at a huge non-denominational evangelical (in the reform tradition) church.  One of my best friends is Missouri Synod Lutheran.  Another nephew is PCA.  Another of my best friends is an Apostolic Christian (Anabaptist) minister.  Another friend is a Church of Christ minister.  Another friend is a United Pentecostal.  I have been to all of these churches many times and they all believe in Sola Scriptura and the all contradict each other in the areas of doctrine and practice and even salvation.  If you need specifics I would be happy to give them to you.  Where is the unity? 
Eventually I realized that Jesus established a church, His church, on the apostles.  He gave this visible, apostolic, hierarchical church authority and that church still exists today.  You can prove these facts from both scripture and reading historical documents.  I evangelize all of my friends and family about how awesome the Catholic Church is because 1) Objective Truth 2) The miracle of the Eucharist 3) The certainty of Absolution.

I know lots of the most sincere believers who accept that God made His Word, Himself, into Flesh,
but don’t believe He made the Word, Himself, into Flesh, in the Last Supper, even though He said so.
We can talk around and around and around it, but Jesus said it. He made Himself, the living word of God into Flesh in the Last Supper.

I believe He can do this and did this and believe I am in His presence
in Church, in Adoration and in receiving the Eucharist. Yes, I eat the word of God literally.
How odd a concept? I can’t explain it, but it is a perceptible presence. However subtle,
I can recognize Him in the Breaking of the Bread (Road to Emmaus).
For some reason, this was a hard one even during the early years for many according to Ignatius of Antioch
and that is very understandable.
No, I don’t believe people are condemned for not believing it, but I do believe such fight very, very hard
against believing it, because even in our faith, we hunger for Him because He thirsts and hungers for us.
The end result is that people become like biblical technicians

In His Being is the love people are really looking for, in their proof seeking and in all the ways
we try and subdue the human part of the relationship between ourselves and God.
Not all these things are sins, some just impediments, ways of hiding our humanity.
One half of the relationship is accepting God and the other half is accepting our humanity
and that we are not special, but loved by the One who is.
For me, that is, The Word made Flesh. This is The New Covenant.

Philip,
It wasn’t you who opened the hornet’s nest, but myself, for posting on a trend I’ve been observing for the past decade. I didn’t expect the post to turn into an apologetic battle. Remember folks, seldom does winning an argument win a convert… in all things charity.

One reader commented that a few theologians does not constitute a “landslide.” My post mentions the theologians, because their conversion is noteworthy, and readers may be familiar with some of their names. I have a box in my office filled with countless pastors (male and female), and lay people, who have come into the Catholic Church from the Lutheran faith. In fact, my first book, “There We Stood, Here We Stand” profiled a dozen of those individuals.

This is to say that from my perspective there has been a considerable movement from the time of Richard John Neuhaus, or should we say from the time of Louis Bouyer, or perhaps the time of Rudolf Goethe, Heinrich Schlier, Georg Klunder, and Martin Giebner, who tell their stories in the early Protestant-to-Catholic conversion story book, “We are Now Catholics”?

At any rate, this discussion has been most interesting. May we continue to pray, as Christ did, that “we all be one.” Our disunity is not a great witness to our non-Christian brothers and sisters.

Rev. Towsend,

May I suggest you get the CATHOLIC ANSWERS BIBLE. It contains 88 commonly asked questions of Catholics and the biblical references to back it up.  Please then try to refute those answers provided.  You can also see the 7 books that are part of the complete bible for the last 2,000 years. 

God Bless,
Lisa

Another piece of scripture often dismissed by many who are sincere believers is John 20:23.
Here Jesus has returned from the Father into the locked room and breathing the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles says, If you forgive anyone his sins they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
Now, believers may talk their way around this very direct statement, but there is but one Church still hearing confessions, where the person convicts themselves before a witness appointed by God. Yes, I know, who says
they were appointed by God the denier asks? But consider the statement in seriousness as to what Jesus is saying because it doesn’t sound much like an option. The point is, Jesus wants to help, but we hang onto our pride. If Our Lord said such a thing, then He only intends to help us in following Him. Unfortunately, we are not the good thief who had Jesus right next to Him to admit our sin to and ask to be remembered in Paradise. We are the ones asked to believe after Jesus ascended and this is His authority passed onto the Apostles.

Growing up in a house that was split: protestant mother, Catholic Father,
I saw many denomintations yet never felt comfortable as when i was in the Catholic Church. And that’s where I am today.

I have contended for quite some time and still do… That if you just take the word protestant for what it is: protest. rebellion. and consider the author of rebellion, it is no surprise as to who is really at the crux of the divisive action being played out here upon the Body of Christ. Luther was inspired to do what he belived was right. But he was decieved by one appearing as an angel of light.

He really knew not what he was doing. We must not have anger towards him. If i am to be correct, I detect here some anger or hurt. and we ought to forgive Luther and the reformationists. As well as those in our Catholic Church who may have helped to inspire this action.
that is if forgiveness must take place.

The adversary will not stop until he is thrown into deep black abyss. so until that day we must pray and work for unity in our words but mostly through our actions. We are Christ’s body now. Take up your cross and follow Him.

Philip Saenz,
“So, I’ll stay with the errorless church that Jesus founded. Incidentally, the Holy Catholic Church teaches that it is infallible in ONLY faith and morals. If the Holy Catholic Church is the ONLY church that teaches that it’s infallible, and if there is an infallible church, then, by that very fact, it is the Holy Catholic Church that is infallible.”
I idea of a corporate body of mortal, sinful, fallen men claiming to be infallible seems to go against the teaching that all men are sinners since the fall of Adam and Eve (Romans ch3:22). It also goes against the idea of human liberty and freedom of conscience. If a body of men can say what is infallible truth what remains for the individual conscience but to submit in blind obedience? What need is there for a Bible or the teaching of the Holy Spirit?  Do you have any proof from the Bible to support this claim?

WayneM - there are differences between your Bible and Catholic Bible. How do you know yours is the right one? Please stop quoting Bible before you can proof its authority. For us Catholics the authority of the Bible comes from Church. How about you? And don’t tell me that it comes from Jesus unless you just met him and discussed the content of the Bible. Your authority is Martin Luther. He better be your prophet and he better be infallible otherwise you have a book without any authority. You cannot proof authority of Bible from the Bible (circular argument).

Gabe,
“WayneM - there are differences between your Bible and Catholic Bible. How do you know yours is the right one? Please stop quoting Bible before you can proof its authority. For us Catholics the authority of the Bible comes from Church. How about you? And don’t tell me that it comes from Jesus unless you just met him and discussed the content of the Bible. Your authority is Martin Luther. He better be your prophet and he better be infallible otherwise you have a book without any authority. You cannot proof authority of Bible from the Bible (circular argument).”
I have a number of RC Bibles and am happy to quote from them if it will make you feel better. The verses I quoted in most cases say basically the same thing in either the RC Bibles or the Protestant Bible. So you concern about which I Bible I quote from is unfounded. My Roman Catholic Bible says “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy (Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” 2 Peter ch1 vs20,21.—New Testament of the New American Bible (Illustrated Saint Joseph Edition) RC bible.  This verse says the prophecy (teaching) of the Bible is not the private preserve of any personal interpretation. In other words no church hierarchy or group has the authority to claim they have the infallible interpretation. It then says the writers did not write through human will but were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. The mean God is the author, not a church. This shows the Bible came to us from God the Holy Spirit; it is not of earthly origin.  I am not a follower of Martin Luther. He was a learned man who God revealed much truth through the Holy Scriptures. But there were many other learned men down through history whom God used. The Bible teaches only what Jesus, the Apostles, and prophets wrote in Holy Scripture is infallible because they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the above verse says.

“The Church came from Jesus, not the reverse.  Jesus did not come from the Church.”
I did not say that. What I was saying was to point out there is more to Revelations than what you are allowing in your private interpretation. Here, maybe this may be of some help to you:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

Posted by Robert on Monday, Mar 21, 2011 8:42 PM (EDT):“A woman”... The church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady.”

Cradle’s reply-
I haven’t read all the posts yet, but I wanted to respond to the above by Robert.  The Church came from Jesus, not the reverse.  Jesus did not come from the Church.

So I maintain the “woman” is a metaphore for Israel.  Salvation comes from the Jews.  Jesus was a Jew.  Through Israel, the Church (the many)was able to have salvation, peace with God the Father, and Eternal Life with the Triune God.  The woman is Israel.

WayneM - I don’t think you understand my argument at all. It does not matter which Bible you use, the authority of the Bible comes from outside not from the Bible.

If I write a book I will call it “Bible” and write “Gabe is the only prophet and this book is the only book you must follow. This book is infallible. Gabe’s words are infallible.” Now I met the burden of proof you are asking - it is called Bible (says so on the cover) and I can quote you the “Bible” as the only authoritative source. The “Bible” proofs it is infallible and the only book to follow.

There is no “Bible” without external authority e.g. Sola Scriptura is an oxymoron. I am actually surprised that there are not as many “Bibles” as protestant denominations. I mean, there must have been other guys apart from Luther who figured out that modifying content of the Bible is the way to go.

So I pick a book. There is a title “Bible”, nice, it might be Bible. Let’s see the back cover - Imprimatur! Great, now I KNOW it is Bible. Church trumps Bible, authority of the Bible comes from Church.

For Lisa:  Dear sister in Christ,  Thank you for your reading suggestions.  However, I have already read Patrick Madrid, Tim Drake et al.  Even better, I’ve read Clement, Ignatius et al.  I read a little Augustine every day.  But, he being the “darling” of Protestants, that’s to be expected, isn’t it?
What you sincere and dedicated Christians who are under the papal obedience fail to grasp is that, although Christ did indeed establish one Church, the communion (fellowship) of saints (believers), that communion and fellowship is not coterminous with the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic (not necessarily Roman) Church is found wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered (Note: the Mass is made up of a Service of the Word and a Service of the Sacrament). Roman Catholic Christians are part of the one Church, not because they submit to the pope, whom I admire and am reading right now, but because they possess the Word and Sacraments. What you good folk labor under is the notion that we all must “March to Zion” in lockstep. As Augustine said, “God loves each of us as if there were only one of us.” That being the case, His call to each of us is as unique as we are.  Pax et benedicta, James E. Townsend, Lutheran minister,retired

To James E. Townsend -  YES!!!  YOU ARE CORRECT!!!  THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THIS SO SUCCINCTLY!!!  Your last post is excellent!  What is important and a matter of eternal value is to be IN CHRIST, not in a specific church.  I loved when you wrote, “...The Catholic (not necessarily Roman) Church is found wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered.”  To that, I say AMEN!  God bless you.

To WayneM: Wayne, despite the foibles of men, Jesus can still run His church infallibly. It doesn’t make sense to me for Jesus to found a church, and then to let it fall apart. Why would Jesus want His church to teach fallibly? In other words, why would Jesus want His church to teach error? I have enough faith in Jesus that He leads us through the church that He founded. That Chruch is the Holy Catholic Church. The Holy Catholic Church is the only church that claims infallibility in faith and morals. If there is an infallible church, then by the very fact that the Catholic Church makes this claim, then, it is the Holy Catholic Church that is infallible in faith and morals. Again, I repeat, I’ll go with the successor of St. Peter, who was given the “keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” I’m sorry, but I cannot go with a church that can’t claim infallibility in faith and morals. 
By holy I mean that the doctrine is holy, and not necessarily the members of the Holy Catholic Church. However, some members are holy.

To Philip Saenz: Why would St. Paul and the others warn the early church to beware of false teachers?  That’s right in the Bible, and there were false teachers even at the same time as the apostles were preaching.  How can we know what is true and what is FALSE?

Read the Bible enough to be familiar with what it teaches, and enough to know when we hear things taken out of context.  I once heard that new bank tellers are given stacks and stacks of cash to count, just to get the FEEL of the money, and then the managers, experienced people, will throw in a counterfeit bill, to see if the new tellers can tell the difference, due to it being vastly different, having a different FEEL.

It’s the same with Christian truth.  We learn what’s in the Bible, and when we hear something that sounds ODD, we can KNOW IT.  Error sticks out like a sore thumb.  It’s what Paul and the other apostles warned about. We don’t want to fall for “some new doctrine”.

To all those that are faithfully attached to the Bible: Please remember that there was first a church, the church that Jesus founded, before there was a Bible. Please, also keep in mind that if you have abandoned the chruch and embraced Sola Scriptura, you’re in trouble. Individuals were not given the charism of infallibility. That’s why we have 30,000 contradictory Protestant sects. If they were are infallible interpreters of the scriptures, they would all agree. It was the Holy Catholic Church, the church founded by Jesus Christ, that was endowed with infallibility. Jesus Christ’s church needs the charism of infallibility; otherwise, it cannot teach the necessary ingredients, faith and morals, that are necessary for salvation. Remember that the church, the Holy Catholic Church, is the mother of the Bible, and not the other way around.

To Born Again Cradle Catholic, let me quote you: “Why would St. Paul and the others warn the early church to beware of false teachers”? My dear friend, St. Paul said it because he knew that many individuals would become his own pope, and consequently contradictory “false teachers.” I’m sure St. Paul must have had “born againers” in mind. What happens when everyone takes the place of the successor of St. Peter, the pope who was given the “keys to the Kingdom of God”? Friend, what happens is that you come up with 30,000 contradictory Protestant sects. Look closely friend. Don’t you think there are many errors within those contradictions? Think, friend, think. Are you an infallible interpreter of the scriptures? What assurance do you have that you are? Did Jesus give you the “keys to the Kingdom of God,” Or did Jesus give them to St. Peter”? My dear friend, what proof can you give me that you hold these “keys”? What proof can you give me that God commissioned you and not the successor of St. Peter? Don’t forget that the Holy Catholic Church is the Mother of the Bible and not the other way around. It was the Holy Catholic Church that compiled the Bible in Carthage in the year 397 A.D. Friend, the Bible didn’t fall from the sky, with verses, chapters and numbers. It was the Holy Catholic Church that put verses, chapters, and numbers in the Bible. God bless you.

God was able to use fallible humans to write the infallible scriptures, but incapable of infallibly leading the Church through fallible humans? James, we are obedient to the pope (not the person, but the position, the keys of stewardship) and the bishops in union with him because we remain obedient to Christ. Protestantism is comprised of large amounts of contradiction that it depends on. Just on this forum someone was using the verse warning against private interpretation to support the private interpretation of protestantism. I am sorry if this seems harsh or “hostile”.
Born Again Cradle Catholic, you are one of the false teachers that the Holy Scriptures warned us against. You come and preach a perverted gospel contrary to the Holy Gospel of Christ handed down to us from Christ and His Apostles and protected by the Holy Spirit. Protestantism is founded completely on private interpretation, and have rejected the power of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church by the very fact that you remain separated. Ye of little faith in the promises of Christ. The fullness of Truth resides in the Catholic Church. The universal Christian Church. Wherever you see the fullness of Truth, you see the Catholic Church (that resides not only on Earth but also in Heaven with Christ as its head). As a protestant, you are partially Catholic insofar as to the Gospel you have not rejected and protest. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Christian Church. James knows somewhat of what I speak going by his previous comment, but is shrouded by the shadow of confusion left from the works of Satan that continues the division that protestantism exalts. May God bless all of us and forgive our sins, including mine.

Here is some information concerning the The Canon of Scripture: http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

Oops, looks like Philip posted while I was still writing my post concerning much the same. Sorry for any repeats.

Robert, it isn’t exactly a repeat. Thanks for writing. Some folks need somethings explained in different ways. So you didn’t really repeat.

Philip Saenz,
“That’s why we have 30,000 contradictory Protestant sects. If they were are infallible interpreters of the scriptures, they would all agree.”
When you say 30,000 sects, you are misunderstanding to a large extent. Although there may be many different denominations, to a large extent these various denominations are in agreement with each other concerning the fundamentals of the christian faith. For example, the vast majority would likely believe that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and believe Jesus died to pay for their sins.  This comes down to the question of what is a true church? Is it a man-made corporate structure which is under the authority of an earthly head or is it a body of people who are in Christ by faith, although they may belong to different administrative structures.  Being in different denominations does not determine one’s standing with God. What matters is whether one is born again by the Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ.  See gospel of John. I often hear RCs mention this 30,000 denomination stuff, but in towns I have lived in or visited, if I look in the phone book I find only a few churches in small towns and perhaps a dozen or more in larger towns or small cities.  So I am not sure how this 30,000 figure is arrived at. Also, the RCC is not as united as it would have us believe.  There have been major differences of opinions and there has never been unanimity in church councils through history. They have been sharply divided over major doctrinal matters. Popes have anathemized other popes apparently, and one time I believe there were two popes at the same time vying for the leadership.

Robert, you wrote: “Born Again Cradle Catholic, you are one of the false teachers that the Holy Scriptures warned us against. You come and preach a perverted gospel contrary to the Holy Gospel of Christ handed down to us from Christ and His Apostles and protected by the Holy Spirit.”

Cradle’s reply-
Robert, those are very harsh words, and while I can take it, please, will you back up your statement, with a list of exactly what I have written that is perverted and contrary to the Gospel handed down to us by Christ?
I would appreciate a list.

To Philip Saenz, who wrote, “St. Paul said it because he knew that many individuals would become his own pope, and consequently contradictory
“false teachers.” I’m sure St. Paul must have had “born againers” in mind.”

Cradle’s reply-
What does “Born Again” mean to you?

Wayne/Rev. Towsend,

I was where you were for 46 years believing that either scripture doesn’t need an interpreter or that every Christian has the “right” to interpret scripture outside of the teaching office Jesus established.  Please answer these questions for me.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?  QUESTION: Shouldn’t we practice baptism for the dead?  If you think so, you should leave your current church and join the LDS Mormon Church.  After all, that is the only church that adheres to the obvious meaning of this verse.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. QUESTION: Do you believe unrepentant sinners will be destroyed (annihilated) rather than eternally tormented?  If so, you should leave your current church and join the Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah Witnesses.  After all, those are the only two churches that adhere to this doctrine.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body… QUESTION: Is Holy Communion really the Body and Blood of Chirst?  If you agree, you should quit your church and become either Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.  QUESTION: Are you justified by faith alone or faith and works?  If you agree with the obvious meaning of James 2:24 you would quit your church and join the Church of Christ, Catholic or Orthodox.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us… See also John 3:3-5, Romans 6, Titus 3.  QUESTION: Are you born again in water baptism?  If you agree with the obvious meaning of 1 Peter 3:21 you would quit your church and join the Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic or Orthodox.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,  Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.  QUESTION: Can you lose your salvation?  If you agree with the obvious meaning of this passage you should quit your church and join a good Calvinist (i.e. Presbyterian, some Baptists or evangelical) church.

Romans 16:16 Salute one another with a holy kiss. (see 1 Corinthians
16:20, 2 Corinth 13:12, 1 Thess 5:13, 1 Peter 5:14)  QUESTION: Do your men kiss each other when they greet each other?  If you agree with the obvious meaning of these verses you need to quit your current church and join an Anabaptist Church like Apostolic Christian.

1 Corinthians 11:4-6 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.  For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  QUESTION: Should women cover their heads when they pray?  If you agree with the obvious meaning of this passage you need to quit your current church and join an Anabaptist Church.

1 Corinthians 4-5 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. QUESTION: Should tongues and prophecy be part of every Christian walk?  If agree with Paul, you should quit your church and join a Pentecostal Church.

John 14:9 “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”.  QUESTION: Do you believe in the false doctrine of the Trinity or do you agree with the obvious meaning of John 14:9 saying that Jesus and His father are one person.  If you agree with Jesus you should quit your church and join the United Pentecostal Church International denomination.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  QUESTION: Do you baptize in the name of Jesus only (not father and Holy Spirit)?  If you agree with Luke you should quit your church and join the United Pentecostal Church International denomination.

Mark 10:11-12 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”  QUESTION: Does your church allow divorce and remarriage?  If so you should quit your church and become a Catholic or join some fundamentalist churches.

This is my last post.  We aren’t getting anywhere.  I will pray for you.  please pray for me.  I consider you brothers in Christ, even if you are wrong about the historical and biblical fact that Jesus founded a visible church with a teaching authority to interpret revelation.

Wayne, I have reread Galatians and the notes in the Catholic Bible that accompany it.  The notes say that many Jews were still kosher and while the question of gentiles being accepted into the Church was settled at the council of Jerusalem, the question of “Christian Jews” breaking kosher laws to eat with Gentiles was not.  Paul strongly believed that it was wrong.  When it was EVENTUALLY decided his understanding was adopted and followed.  Therefore it doesn’t mean Peter wasn’t infallible.  It means he hadn’t been confronted with the issue yet. Tim Drake is right, this shouldn’t be a battle.  The Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth.

Pam,
You have a very flawed understanding of infallibility.  Peter would have to proclaim that all Christians must hold to the practice that “Christian Jews” must hold to kosher laws.  Exactly which verse does Peter make this proclimation.  Please answer the same questions I posed to Wayne and Rev. Towsend.  I will pray for you too.  You would love the Catholic faith if you ever really studied it and practiced it.

Tim Cooper,
While I appreciate your comments, could you please make them more brief? That last long posting with countless questions makes it very difficult to discuss because one would have to study 24 hrs a day to answer the questions. I admit you must have an incredible mind to be able to make such a long posting in such a short time, but it is very difficult to answer in the limited time available for this activity, for me anyway. I will try to answer some of your points.

Gabe,
“WayneM - I don’t think you understand my argument at all. It does not matter which Bible you use, the authority of the Bible comes from outside not from the Bible.”
Please explain what you mean authority of the Bible comes from outside not from the Bible?  Did not Jesus say after he is gone, He would send the Holy Spirit to guide his disciples into all truth? (John ch16 vs13)

Pam,
” Therefore it doesn’t mean Peter wasn’t infallible.  It means he hadn’t been confronted with the issue yet. Tim Drake is right, this shouldn’t be a battle.  The Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth.”
Please try reading Galatians chapter 2 again and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you as to it’s understanding rather than the commentary notes you said you read. Remember the Apostle Paul wrote Galatians under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he said “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Galatians 2:11.  Peter obviously was not infallible when he was withdrawing and separating himself from eating with the Gentiles. Paul said they (including Peter) “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” in trying to compel the Gentiles to live as the (unconverted) Jews (under the Old Testament Jewish rituals).  In this matter, Paul makes it clear Peter was dead wrong and therefore not acting infallibly in this important gospel matter. We should remember that when Peter wrote his two epistles (1 Peter and 2 Peter) he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore what he wrote was infallibly the Word of God. However, a careful examination of the epistles will show that the other Apostles never regarded Peter as a pope and Peter never exerted authority over the rest of them as a pope might do. Why? Because Peter was never a pope and never regarded as one. If he had been a pope, why would such an important matter as his alleged papal office not have been mentioned throughout the epistles?

Tim Cooper,
You asked a long list of questions and then concluded by saying that will be your last post as if you are exasperated. I have not even had an opportunity to answer any of your questions or ask you anything. Seems you wish to simply make a long list of statements of your interpretation of scripture and not listen to any replies or discuss anything. I am still open to discussion with you, but not sure you are willing to engage in discussion.

Wayne, I did read it again and I disagree. The commentary I refer to isn’t someone hypothesising.  It is Church clarification based on Church history.  Paul confronted Peter about leaving the gentiles once the Jews arrived, an issue of keeping kosher practices because some Jewish converts still followed the Old Testament rituals.  They would have felt they were sinning to share the meal with the uncircumcised.  Peter didn’t want to offend them.  Paul raised the issue.  It was, according to the notes, an issue that had not come up before.  Both men acted in good conscience, from love, having known Jesus personally or extraordinarily.  Paul saw a problem and confronted Peter.  When it was addressed it was, through the Holy Spirit, addressed properly.  Issues arise in the Church that people handle differently because of their perspective.  Sometimes these differences aren’t acceptable and have to be addressed.  When the Pope acts in these instances He is acting infallibly.  By not acting before they are brought up to be addressed or by following his own thoughts on these issues before they are brought up, he is not diminishing his infallibility in matters of faith and morals.  That infallibility applies only when he speaks ex cathedra.

WayneM - nothing like that in the Bible. I do have Bible in front of me and it is very clear: “Gabe is infallible”. There is no John 16, 13 in the Bible. I can sent you copy. The Bible talks only about Gabe. It does say “Bible” on the front cover. It does say this Bible is infallible. Proof to me that this Bible I just created has no authority. Since there is no external authority, like say, I don’t know, for example - Church - you cannot prove it. Your only recourse to proof what is and what is not Bible is referring to TRADITION.

WayneM, I don’t blame him. After spending the night with my family, I’m calling it quits here also. One thing I have learned after talking with many protestants over the past decade is that Satan uses these times to waste our time. Protestantism was founded on pride and ignorance from the start and rejects the guiding grace that the Holy Spirit provides to the Church. As such each individual protestant holds himself to be the arbiter of truth by private judgment. WayneM, earlier someone provided you with examples from the Holy Scriptures. You responded only asking for the verses, giving the most likely false appearance that you were unfamiliar with the parts of the New Testament that was being referred to. Protestants seem to spend more time focusing on the verse numbers, and not on the Scripture itself to the point where you do not recognize anything unless you have the verse numbers (which notedly was not present in Scripture to begin with.) All of Scripture is inclusive with itself, and must be held in it’s entirety and can not be broken down to individual verses to be held exclusive from the other verses, and books, of the Bible (the collection of the Scriptures which itself exists once the canon was declared.) It is a cause of many of your troubles understanding the Gospel as the Church teaches. Nothing in Scripture contradicts itself as it is the Word of God, yet none of it should be separated when looking at the big picture. You are misinformed on what Christianity means by the infallibility of the pope. In my experience many continue using the false notion even after it has been clarified. It does not mean he is infallible in everything he does or says, and does not mean that he can not sin (as he possibly does in the example you give which in fact does not prove what you thought it proved. See, that is the problem with private interpretation. Ignorance betrays you in the end. You can not rely on yourself as protestantism forces you to.) I will leave it up to you to do your research if you are truly seeking what the Church actually teaches about the infallibility of the Holy Spirit through the holder of the keys. If you don’t, then it would be just a waste of time of me trying to explain it to you here to begin with. The protestants I have dialogued with rarely recognize the contradictions they have to accept to maintain protestantism. They often contradict themselves within the same posts, and just aren’t able to see it for some reason even when pointed out plainly… It always ends up being circular in the end. We provide with Scripture and history that invalidates their stand on one topic, and unable to go further they shift to another topic. Same thing happens, next topic. Same thing, back to the first topic as if it wasn’t even discussed yet. Ad infinitum. I have been through this countless times and now weary of it. It truly does depend solely on the Grace of God for conversion. For only He can unlock a hardened or misguided heart. I will move on. For the division and strife brought forth by protestantism against ultimately Christ and the Holy Spirit (I realize most of you today protest out of ignorance and not ill will; I am not trying to lord it over you as we all suffer from ignorance of some sort or another) only serves Satan and is like piercing the heart of Christ, and often times it is as if I feel a splinter of it myself which then sometimes begins to agitate me. Christ’s peace be upon us.

P.S. regarding example concerning infallibility and Paul’s rebuke of Peter; here is another look on that passage that may help:
http://scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#scripture-I

P.S.S. Scripture does show the primacy of Peter. Read a little closer. You might find this dialogue with an Orthodox interesting:
http://scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#tradition-9
Sorry for using the same website. This one is just one of many that can help explain the teachings of the Church and their foundations. Also the Catechism.

Robert,
Thank you for the explanation of where you are coming from and why you have grown frustrated with the discussions with Protestants. I respect your right to hold your view although I cannot agree with it.  All I can do is speak for myself. I am thankful that the Lord by His grace given me the gift of faith unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ some 31 years ago and forgiven my sin based upon his shed blood on the cross. (Ephesians 2:8,9) I heard the gospel preached on the radio one evening and the minister said “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” 1 Corinthians ch15: 1-4
One could spend his life debating and defending what he believes is the truth; but yet miss the central message of the gospel and be lost. The Apostle Paul said he was determined to know nothing else but Christ crucified and his central message was that sinners are saved by believing in Christ and that Christ died and paid the full price for their sins.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Romans 1:16 Dear friend, if you were to die tonight do you know where you would go? Do you have assurance that your sins are coompletely forgiven? “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” Romans 5:1 “Even David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” Romans 4 vs6-8 Can you honestly say at this moment your iniquities are forgiven and your sins are covered as these verse speak about?

To Born Again Cradle Catholic: To me, a “born again” is usually a non-Catholic who tries to lead himself with his personal interpretations of the Bible, which could be correct interpretations or wrong interpretations. That’s what happens with “sola scriptura.”
The Holy Catholic Church has always had a pope except for those short periods when a pope dies. There were pretenders to the papacy just as there are pretenders today. However, only one is authentic.
In answer to those who are led only by the Bible: St. Paul teaches to “hold on to your traditions.” I believe it’s in Thessalonians. The Holy Catholic Church holds on to “traditions.” The Holy Catholic Church has history and traditions. It’s somewhat funny when Protestants protest that St. Peter wasn’t the first pope. Being a bit astute, I ask them, “then who was the first pope?” Sometimes these poor Protestants retort: “There wasn’t a first pope.” It’s funny, but I still love them. Surely, someone must have been first.
You have a computer, so look up “papacy” or “pope” if you want to learn a bit of history on the papacy of the Holy Catholic Church. You see, friends, the Holy Catholic Church has history. It was there when it all happened. It witnessed. I rely on that history and witness. Where else can you go? Most so-called Christian churches don’t have much of a history. They did not witness simply because they weren’t there. Incidentally, I’ve visited the catacombs. Everything in there points to the Holy Catholic Church.
I STILL MAINTAIN: IF JESUS CHRIST FOUNDED A CHURCH, THEN HE KEPT THAT CHURCH FROM SINKING. HE KEPT IT INFALLIBLE SO THAT WE COULD BE NOURISHED WITH THE TWO INGREDIENTS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION—THE INFALLIBLE GIFTS OF CORRECT FAITH AND MORALS. SO I’LL STICK WITH THE PAPACY. I CANNOT PUT MY SALVATION ON THE LINE ON ANY OTHER SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
P.S. Jesus Christ is the infallible invisible head of the Holy Catholic Church. The pope is the visible head. The pope holds the “keys” that were entrusted by Jesus Christ, but Jesus remains the invisible head. Read St. Matthew Chapter 16.

I have been reading most of these comments from both sides of the divide! All I can say to those who do not believe in what Catholics believe, at the end of time the truth will be known.  So no argument, no debate is better than that! I had a cousin of mine leave the church to join a ” born again” sect and I have been subject to such vicious attacks on what I believe. I did not say a thing. I find it a pointless exercise. I pray for her and I pray for myself, that I will remain faithful to the end and yes.. I pray that we both get to heaven. Let us, protestants and Catholics, pray for each other. To me, Scott Hahn is a classic example of how a very faithful non-Catholic who knew the Word of God in great depth and possessed great intellect, became a Catholic through his own conviction. He studied. He searched. He argued and counter argued. He delved. He found!  He thanks the church he belonged to before for the love of Scripture that was nurtured there but he says categorically that he has found the fullness of faith in the Catholic church. His knowledge of Scripture never fails to amaze me. He speaks with the power of the Holy Spirit. He also has written extensively on the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, among other things. So, to all my brothers and sisters In Christ, I pray we can unite in our own search for the truth. Let us learn to give each other space to do that.God bless.

WayneM, Although Christ died for your sins, your sins are only forgiven by faith. Faith requires true believing, that is where all those people are going to be surprised when God says “I do not know you.”  We have so many sinners who continue in the sin because they believe God has forgiven them their sins and they feel they can just keep on committing them.  They don’t really believe in Jesus Christ because He gave us the power to overcome sin, through faith. And He gives grace to those who have faith and they do overcome sin. True believing means admitting sin and repenting of it and begging God for His grace. The different Churches that admit Jesus Christ all have some grace and truth. As Catholics we know we have the fullness of truth.  That’s the difference.  We live in a very difficult time and many believe Satan has entered into the Church. Bishop is rising up against Bishop.  The teaching is being distorted so it is wise to follow the narrow road now and be wary of those who would the road so broad that it loses all meaning.

Dear Barbara,Lisa,Palm,Robert,Cephas,Rev.Lee Benninght,Gabe,Mariane..etc.

When the apostles went to spread the word of Messiah,Jesus told them: If the household rejects your teaching,
dust off your shoes and leave. He did not convinced Pharisee about Him as Messiah. How you can convinced
Protestant who through sinful Luther hated Pope per a see. Those who reject Jesus Church,are not worthy of
your faithful convincing and tireless lightening work. Your stubborn brother does not deserve it. . He is either provocateur or not ready to accept the truth. Give up as Jesus gave up on Pharisee.
YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF CATHOLIC TEACHING IS APPRECIATED BY JESUS CHRIST.
  Etean

Posted by Philip Saenz on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 11:32 AM (EDT):To Born Again Cradle Catholic: To me, a “born again” is usually a non-Catholic who tries to lead himself with his personal interpretations of the Bible,

Cradle’s reply-
Then Philip, why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that we must be born again?

To Cradle Catholic: In the Holy Catholic Church, “born again” means becoming a new person in baptism. In other words, when Catholics are baptized, they are “born again.” But you asked me what I thought the meaning of “born again” was. I gave you what I thought the Protestants mean by “born again.” Usually in the Protestant church “born again” is usually a person who believes in the Bible, who tries to follow Jesus according to his interpretation, and who interprets the Bible in the best way that he can, which consequently leads to many contradictions. Some of these contradictions are clearly errors. Can’t you see that contradictions can lead to errors? Can’t you see that errors do not lead you to God? Cradle Catholic, God does not contradict Himself. I don’t mean to be evil, but I’ll be blunt and truthfull. Protestantism is the religion of contradictions, the tower of Babel. You give a Protestant the Bible, and soon you’ll have a new religion. Somewhere along the way, that person will contradict the interpretation of another Protestant. That’s why there are thousands of Protestant religions. Usually they call themselves Evangelicals. May God bless you. P.S. Believe me, sola scriptura isn’t the way to go. Jesus said: “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” That means a church without errors. That church is the Holy Catholic Church. Look up “Papacy of the Holy Catholic Church” in the internet as a starter. Thank you and may God bless you again.

To Cradle Catholic: Jesus never wrote a word except when he wrote a few things on the ground. Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything. Jesus never commanded to write a Bible, and then to hand everyone a Bible, and allow that person to ferret out of the Bible whatever. Jesus built a teaching institution. Think friend, think. Did you look up “Papacy of the Holy Catholic Church” in the internet? Start there in your journey to the infallible truth in faith and morals. I would never, never, never put my trust in sola scriptura especialliy from another individual other than myself. Only Jesus’ church is protected from making mistakes in faith and morals. That church is the Holy Catholic Church. Be careful, I said faith and morals, and not astronomy, math, medicine, et cetera. ONLY FAITH AND MORALS. P.S. I stay with the Holy Catholic Church.

To Philip Saenz - My understanding is that to be “born again” is to be born again in the Spirit.  We are born once = physical birth, but our spirit is “of the world” UNTIL our spirit is born of the Holy Spirit, in a re-birth that comes from identifying with Jesus on the cross, and of “dying to self”, allowing Him to live in us.

Being born again in the spirit is the result of recognizing that we are sinners, and accepting Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross as payment for OUR sins, and of turning FROM our old sinful ways, and of turning TO God. It’s an interior happening, and the OUTWARD sign of all that, is baptism with water, and “In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

A baby cannot be born again of the Spirit.  A baby can only be sprinkled with water, and dedicated to God by his parents and Godparents.  If a baby could be born again of the Holy Spirit, then Adolph Hitler was born again, because he was not only baptized Roman Catholic, but he was also Confirmed, and he was an altar boy too.

Based on the evidence of his life, I’d say he, like many others, was born once = physically, but he was never born-again (of the Holy Spirit).  If we are born once, we die TWICE.  Physically AND spiritually dead.  But if we are born twice, we die once = physically only; our spirits are alive and living IN CHRIST, forever.

@Marianne, Beautiful comment. Amen and God bless.

ETEAN,
“Protestant who through sinful Luther hated Pope per a see. Those who reject Jesus Church,are not worthy of
your faithful convincing and tireless lightening work.”
What about Jesus’ command to love thy neighbour as thyself. Isn’t this the second greatest command? What about the apostle Paul’s teaching about charity? “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” 1 Corinthians ch13 vs1. Rather than trying to shut down other people’s discussions, why not show why you believe what you do if you think it is correct? Let the arguments stand up to the scrutiny of God’s Word. If they be according to the truth of God’s Word, then it should stand. Why fear discussion unless there is something to hide?

Jesus asked the head teacher, you don’t know this, (regarding the spirit)? The Pharisees had the word, but not the spirit. This is why Jesus took the seat from them and gave it to a new people who would produce its fruits, (Parable of the tenants). Protestants are like them with all their hours and hours in technical work, but hardly the same in prayer; great technicians of scripture in their minds, but mock the word made flesh in the Eucharist. Yes, the Church has had to live down its own errors and evils, but at least we know why the devil is always trying to destroy it. The devil doesn’t hate scripture, he used it to tempt Jesus, what he hates is Jesus, Our Father and the Holy Spirit. Likewise the devil hates the Lord made flesh in the Holy Eucharist. The devil hates God. When separated from the spirit, the words become tools the devil to destroy people. The central tenant of our Lord’s teaching is to love God with all one’s mind and heart and to love thy neighbor in the same. Do such and salvation is assured.
It has to be or it would not be the most important commandment. Therefore, the central issue isn’t whether we declare our salvation with certitude, but whether we love the Trinity with all our heart and others in the same. You cannot be certain you are finding find the word incarnate in the word alone, since He reveals Himself not once but according to His wisdom and wishes. But Word Incarnate, Our Lord, is the New Covenant as opposed to the Old Covenant, which was the word of God, but not yet fully revealed in the Word Incarnate.
We can be more sure of Jesus in the Eucharist than our own fallibility as many have pointed out above.
So what is so terrifying about walking into a Catholic Church and praying on one’s knees before the Word Made Flesh? It worked for Nobert Novak, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram and Larry Kudlow and countless others. The Catholic Church is the home of the Word Made Flesh and in this the Church can’t err, because this is Our Lord. Bring your bible, sit instead of kneel if such is culturally unacceptable to you, yes, way in the back. It doesn’t matter if you believe, as no self hypnosis is required. The same is true of prayer. He answers because we call him and want to spend time with Him, not because we are people of merit. So it is with the Eucharist. Don’t worry, no one will ask you if you’re saved or what your name is. You will be free to love the Lord in peace.

@Cradle Catholic   Catholic (and Orthodox) Christians are born again every time we receive Jesus in the Eucharist.  What better way to be most intimate with Christ - to consume Him as He asked us to in John 6.  Either Catholics have been worshiping “bread” for 2,000 years or it indeed is Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of which the faithful were martyred for their faith.  I invite everyone to come and sit at Church with Jesus in the tabernacle (or monstrance in adoration when He imprints his features on all present) and ASK Him to SHOW you His TRUTH ... He WILL.  “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you”.

@Sean Farrell WELL DONE!

Apart from Martin Luther, I only know of two Lutherans and then indirectly. Angela Merkal is one, and I have the utmost respect for her, publicly making a stand for the German children abused by Catholic clergy.
The other another convert to Catholicism.
I only hope they read the fine print of the Law of the Church in case they have recourse to it one day.
We no longer are the “haven” once thought of either, which some of those who for whatever reason “jump ship”, once thought we were.

I just watched EWTN’s LIFE ON THE ROCK SHOW from 3/2/11 and these are some notes from the show.  The guest was Dr. SCOTT HAHN- a former Presbyterian minister who was vehemently against the Catholic Church, and Dr. Hahn CONVERTED TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 20 YEARS AGO.  The show referenced the most authoritative document to come out in more than 40 years, since Vatican II’s with the issue of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation in 1965.  THIS IS THE CHURCH’S VIEW OF SACRED SCRIPTURE AND PERTAINS TO OUR DISCUSSIONS HERE.

Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation: Verbum Domini ~ Pope Benedict XVI
The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini, on the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church, was presented on 11 November 2010 in the Holy See Press Office. Verbum Domini was dated 30 September, 2010 Memorial of St. Jerome, and is the fruit of the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held in Rome from 5 to 26 October 2008. The Bishops’ interventions at the Synod were offered to the Holy Father, who then responded with this Apostolic Exhortation. 
GO HERE TO SEE THE REFERENCED 208 PAGES:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16verbumdom.HTM

We have never seen occupying the chair of St. Peter, a world class http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-lutheran-landslide/theologian who is also a biblical scholar ~ ot since St. Peter himself who wrote part of the New Testament.  This is a very unique event.  The Holy Spirit raised up a biblical theologian.

This recently released document is divided up in 3 parts.  It is understandable to the average lay person.

1.  The Bible is the inspired word in sacred Scripture but above all the incarnate word in Jesus Christ.  The eternal world of the Father made flesh.
Catholic Christianity is not a religion of the book, but it is a religion of The Word and The Word is a person, a divine person, an eternal divine person and only later does it become a written document.  So we have an incarnate Word, the Word made flesh, the second person of the eternal trinity but then we also have The Word inspired in sacred scripture.  And in our tradition, we subordinate the inspired Word to the incarnate Word, Jesus.  Catholics don’t devalue the bible, if anything Catholics invest it with far greater power precisely by showing how it is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end and that is Jesus.  Getting to know the bible is vital as it brings us closer to Jesus.

2.  Word and Church (*most important section of the three*)  Takes all the themes of Vatican 2 and brings it to the next level.

3.  The Word in the World

Pope Benedict VI will be known throughout history as the Pope of the Word of God.  Sacred Scripture not only on his mind but in his heart.
IN ONE CENTURY THERE HAS BEEN WRITTEN MORE IN THAN IN THE PREVIOUS 19 CENTURIES.

God Bless,
Lisa in Virginia

Etean to WayneM.
If my words found you then you must ask yourself: Why should I for last three days should listen these Catholics
who did not convinced me? You expressed your opinion and rejected theirs. In your mind,the shake hands with your older brothers and sisters and if you do not join them,at least wish them the best and rather in the time of
intensifying animosity from the secular world against Catholic Church,wish them the best. Do not take it personal,but Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the only most hated Churches from Satan.
It was in Eastern Europe under Communist dictatorial government where Protestants in ( majority ) entered communist secret police and persecuted Catholic as the enemy of the progress. That time many honest Protestants converted to Catholic Church. You should ask as why the world hate Vatican and Pope?
The Abortion,S-Sex marriage,Homosexuality-Who is 100% against?  Only R.C.Church. I love you Etean

Catholic Christianity is of the book Lisa, the book of church law, Canon Law.
It is full of conradictions and would never stand up in a civil court of law, actually it’s there to protect the church not you, I or Christianity.

“May the eyes of your hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, and what is the surpassing greatness of his power for us who believe…” Ephesians 1:18-19

Convert Scott Hahn is a biblical SCHOLAR who knows the bible inside and out!  See what he has to say based on this years of research to find His truth:  http://www.scotthahn.com/about-dr-hahn.html

A note from Scott Hahn… My work is about reading the Bible — reading it with you, and reading it “from the heart of the Church.”

We are called to be trusting children of God and of the Church, our mother. My studies have led me to realize that we are priviledged to read the sacred page within an unfathomable community: the communion of saints, the voices of Catholic Tradition, the great cloud of witnesses from all of history. Our guide is the Holy Spirit, working through the Church’s Magisterium.

Most importantly, we have the great gift to read the Bible in its natural and supernatural habitat: the liturgy. The Bible and the liturgy were made for one another. In the Old Testament and the New, the Scriptures presume, prescribe, and describe the ritual life of God’s people…of us…for us! The Bible gives us both the content and context of the liturgy — even as the liturgy provides our context for understanding the Scriptures. If we read the Bible as it was written, we’ll read it from the heart of the Church. It is the heart of Jesus.

All we have to do is open the Word and be open to learning about it, about Him. My work has been focused on helping you to that end. You’ll find here my books and CDs/DVDs and you can find information about upcoming events, but I’ve also added long lists of other resources which I’ve found helpful. Look, too, at the rich content on the separate site of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, the apostolate I founded, which is a non-profit research and educational institute that promotes life-transforming Scripture study in the Catholic tradition.

ROME SWEET HOME IS SCOTT AND KIMBERLY HAHN’S CONVERSION TO CATHOLICISM:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898704782?ie=UTF8&tag=scotthcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0898704782

BOOK REVIEWS:  (BOOK GOT 5 STARS ON AMAZON)
Although I’m not a Roman Catholic, I am a reasonable person and a devout Bible-believing Christian, capable of recognizing an airtight biblical case for Catholicism. That’s exactly what I found in Rome Sweet Home. For the first time, I also now recognize something else that’s even more disturbing, and that is, how foolish I’ve been in attacking the faith of Roman Catholics with the same kind of blind arrogance exhibited by Pastor Whalen in his review (see below). We need to be honest with ourselves, as Bible Christians, and admit that we have never been able to take Catholics seriously as fellow-believers, mostly because we have never allowed ourselves to be exposed to a sustained presentation of the biblical basis for Catholic beliefs, like Hahn does in Rome Sweet Home. No wonder Pastor Whalen admits to feeling “overwhelmed” and “sick to my stomach”. Humble pie has a way of doing that.

I cannot say enough good about this book or the Hahns! As a self described “generic Christian” for many years, I found this book amazingly readable and very fair. Scott has definitely done his research. Although this book was not intended to dispel all the myths about the Catholic faith, it did answer a lot of my questions. I read all the reviews and was pleased to note that there were very few criticisms. Those that disagreed by claiming that his conversion was “intellectual” and not spiritual or that “he never really understood the reformed faith” are missing the point. If you study the subject with an open mind and heart, you can’t escape how much sense the Catholic faith makes! I think part of the reason that these critics are so nasty and defensive is the fact that they are not only having to defend their position against the Catholic church, but also against the other 25,000 different Protestant denominations. No wonder they feel insecure! On a personal note to ALL Christians: Keep and open mind and heart and study your faith objectively and know WHY you believe what you believe! Too many Christians, Catholic AND Protestants are just “going through the motions” and do not fully understand their faith. I recently made the decision to convert to the Catholic Church and it wasn’t a decision made lightly. I am continuing to study so that I can not only grow stronger in my convictions, but to be able to defend my faith. I highly recommend this book to cradle Catholics as well as recent converts or anyone who has even a passing interest in the faith. God Bless you all!

I lost count of how many people recommended that I read “Rome Sweet Home”. Frankly, I didn’t want to. Call it stubborn pride, whatever. Anyway, I finally broke down and read it this past summer. Since then I’ve re-read it four more times. Now I see why so many people recommended it. This book is truly amazing. The Hahns use their own journey to show how their commitment to Jesus Christ and the Bible is what ultimately led them down an entirely unforseeable path towards Rome. Out of obedience, they became Catholic AND evangelical. Now I find myself in the same situation. After intense study and prayer, I will be received into the Catholic Church tomorrow night. My former pastor now tells me he’s even thinking about becoming Catholic himself, and that’s after spending the last two years trying to persuade me not to. Thank you Scott and Kimberly Hahn, from the bottom of my heart. But most of all, thank you Lord.

Recommended Reading of Convert Scott Hahn   - he was very surprised at where his search led him!

  *  Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology by Dr. Matthew Levering.
  * The Gospel of Matthew (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture) by Edward Sri and Curtis Mitch
  * Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre
  * Catholic Bible Dictionary by Scott Hahn
  * Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises by Scott Hahn
  * A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture by Scott Hahn
  * Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy by Scott Hahn
  * Swear to God: Promise and Power of the Sacraments by Scott Hahn
  * The Lamb’s Supper: Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn
  * Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina
  * The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God by Dr. Robert Louis Wilken

ETEAN,
“It was in Eastern Europe under Communist dictatorial government where
Protestants in ( majority ) entered communist secret police and persecuted
Catholic as the enemy of the progress.”
Perhaps you are unknowingly spreading misinformation. What Protestants even exist in eastern Europe? I have never heard of them. Do you mean Serbian orthodox or Russian Orthodox? These are not Protestants as North Americans think of Protestants. Orthodox are similar to RCs but without the Pope as far as I know.  Protestants who lived in the Soviet Union who were Bible-believing christians were persecuted by the KGB under the Soviet system and many were sent to concentration camps in Siberia.  They were in relatively small numbers. But they were not part of the Russian Orthodox church. Most religious people in eastern Europe are either RC (Poland, Croatia, etc) or Orthodox (as in Serbia and other countries) and in Russia, they are Russian Orthodox. None of these are Protestants as we in the west think of Protestants.  Genuine bible-believing christians do not join secret police and persecute people anywhere. Perhaps you mistakenly lump everyone who is not an RC into Protestant fold. That might be where you are going wrong. If that is the case, I can understand how you made the error.  There are many different religions in the world which call themselves christian, but many are as different as day and night.  You need to get the facts straight before throwing around accusations.

THIS WEEK ON EWTN’s SHOW, “EWTN LIVE”
http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/ewtnlive.asp
It’s the 3/23/11 show and it will repeat at 9AM EST later today (later it will be available on the Internet)

Dr. Tim Gray (raised Catholic) & Jeff Cavins (reversion back to Catholicism) talk about:  Walking with God: a Journey Through the Bible

I just started a bible study (HIGHLY recommmend this)using Jeff Cavins book on how to read the bible as a story:
Great Adventure Bible Timeline Study Kit (for 24-Week Study)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_39?url=search-alias=aps&field;-keywords=jeff+cavins+great+adventure+bible+study&sprefix=jeff+cavins+great+adventure+bible+study

Jeff Cavins was raised Catholic and left the church and became a Protestant pastor for 12 years.  He was on fire for Jesus and then his search for His truth lead him to revert back to the Catholic Church.  Jeff has brought his passion back to Catholicism.  www.JeffCavins.com

God Bless you on your search for His truth!

@Lynne Newington   At each Mass, there are two parts:
1.The Liturgy of The Word
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/mass/word.html
2. and the Liturgy of the Eucharist
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/mass/eucharist.html

Perhaps these links will help you know what a Catholic believes.  After all, there were no printing presses until the 1500’s.  Those few that could read, could get a bible.  Prior to that, the bible was read in “community” at the Mass (every three years the entire bible is read at mass).  Do you realize it took a monk a year to transcribe each bible and cost the same amount as the church building?  Not too many could afford a bible.  The Word of God was also bound in beauty - after Henry VII broke from Rome, he burned all bibles! but kept the bindings (created from silver/gold and precious stones).  God Bless!

Lisa; for the Christian, the book to stick to is the Scriptures and Catholics were never encouraged to read it in case it wasn’t interpreted in line with Catholic teaching and tradtion.
I know because I was as a convert and continued with a group that included other Catholics who studied the readings for the coming week.
Now, if I wasn’t instructed correctly that is the problem of the Monsignor who instructed me.
There are quite a few other things he never told me too.
It’s a pity monks haven’t remained in their monastries printing bibles. I’m afraid today, many have far to much free time on their hands and you know what they say about idle hands.

I grew up agnostic and for most of my life felt as though Catholics did things out of necessity because the Popes said too. Well a lot of this is true and some of it may be fallible but that is not where the heart of the faith is at. God (through Jesus) knows man’s hearts and no other person or “Bible” can lead us to him. On this earth men lead men and Jesus saw to it that he handed, in front of the other apostles, over to Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He did not hand the Bible over to Peter he handed his people over to Peter. Was Peter the ideal of a modern day leader? Was Paul right in confronting Jesus? Who gives a big pile of dung!
The problem with a protest movement is their arguments start to sound like whining or !@#$% when they can’t establish the truth of their point. But they don’t care. They are comfortable in their “stick it to the big man” mentality.

“...Paul right in confronting Peter?” Whoops!

To Cradle Catholic, you can be born in all the ways that you said. Thank you. But did you ever hear of Free Will? Because of Free Will, you are capable of rejecting everything that is good even if you were a great saint. Adam and Eve were endowed with very great gifts in the beginning. They were not only born but created with beautiful gifts. But what happened? They rejected all the gifts that God had given them. And now we’re in this mess. May God bless you and everyone on this site.

@Lynne  
Catholics do read the bible and we have the Magisterium of The Church to guide us with regard to the biblical interpretation.  Please provide the chapter and verse in Holy Scripture where it states, ‘Scripture Alone’.
You can not find it because it does not exist anywhere in Holy Scripture.  How, then, can Scripture Alone be the rule when it is to be found nowhere in Scripture?

Neither the phrase ‘Scripture Alone’, nor the concept exists anywhere in Holy Scripture.(1) However, what does exist is just the opposite. All Protestant churches claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.  How can this be true when no two of these 33,799 Protestant churches can agree on what they claim to be the truth inspired by the Holy Spirit?  Furthermore, how can this claim be true when there is only one inerrant Holy Spirit?

The Church teaches that Holy Scripture is the inspired word of God.  That is to say, written by man, but inspired by the Holy Spirit.  With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope in a decree, the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I issued at the Council of Rome 382 A.D, declared which books of the Bible were canonical.  He then gave St. Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest, the mission to translate them into the Latin Vulgate.  This work was completed in 398 A.D.  Several Councils confirmed the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I and the Latin Vulgate afterwards.

History has it that it took one monk working arduously between 10 and 20 years to transcribe ONE complete Bible. Gutenberg invented the printing press during the 15th century. So for 1,500 years or so, how was the Gospel being handed down when there were little or no written copies of it, and the vast majority of people were illiterate then?  The answer lies in the citations above.  By word of mouth and by the writings and teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.  We call this handing down, “Catholic Tradition”, and it is as much a part of the Deposit of Faith now as it was then.

A priest sent me this today and it pertains to this discussion.  To view:
http://www.call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm

This is a part of the article:
Is The Catholic Church
The Mother Of The Bible, Or The Daughter?

By simple deduction:
The Catholic Church was founded at the end of Christ’s ministry on earth, or about 29-30 A.D. The first book of the New Testament was not even written until about 20 years later.  The Catholic Church could not possibly have come from the Bible. Instead, the Bible came from the Catholic Church. Consequently, the Catholic Church is the mother of the Bible, and not the daughter. By the time Revelation, the last book of the Bible, was written around 100 A.D., the Catholic Church was already on its
5th Pope, St. Evaristus.

The common verse supplied in a twisted response taken out of context is that of 2 Tim. 3:16-17.  It is axiomatic that one must consider the contextual meaning of specific verses in Scripture.  Only in that way can their true meaning be understood.  It is the will of Almighty God that we each seek the truth, remember?  Furthermore, one can extract verses out of Scripture in an attempt to ‘support’ anything.

In 2 Tim. 3:10 Paul praises the reader for “observing my teaching”.  As we have seen in the Scripture cited within this writing, he taught by word of mouth, by his preaching.  That is to say, by Catholic Tradition.  Hence, St. Paul is praising the reader(s) for adhering to Catholic Tradition.

The verse, 2 Tim. 3:16, reads: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching”.  It does NOT say that Scripture is to be used exclusively for teaching.  Roman Catholics do not disagree that Holy Scripture is useful for teaching.  That is one of the reasons why we wrote the Bible.

For an excellent and thorough exegesis on this, you must read Bob Stanley’s, For Whom the Bell Tolls: Death Knell For Sola Scriptura.

“after Henry VII broke from Rome, he burned all bibles! but kept the bindings (created from silver/gold and precious stones).”
That may be true. Bibles were not distributed to the people in those days. The change of permitting the people to have Bibles came slowly after a long struggle.  History shows that Rome used the Latin Vulgate since the early centuries and by the 1000 AD or 1500 AD, how many people in Europe could understand Latin? Very few I would think. So the common people in Britain in the 1500s could not understand the Latin Vulgate unless someone interpreted it for them. During the 1500s the first Bibles were translated into English, the common language of the people in England. There was great opposition by Romanists to this being done. Tindale was burned at the stake for doing it and his ashes thrown into the River Thames. With the aid of printing presses and the Reformation, eventually the Bible in the English language was made available to the churches and many people in Britain, but it was a slow and painful process because of opposition. Luther also translated a Bible into German in his country for the Lutheran people in the 1500s. Likewise bibles were eventually translated into the common tongue in the Netherlands for the Reformed churches.  Rome has never been keen on the laity having or reading the Bible themselves. Rome forbid the people to have Bibles in the middle ages. Giving Bibles to the common person was a gradual developement in countries where the Reformation occurred. This step toward freedom was forced on Rome because their people saw the Protestants were able to read the Bible and it would be hard to justify denying Bibles to the RC laity in that case. Even so, Rome maintains control of the interpretation of the Bible and nobody is allowed to interpret it themselves; i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

@WAYNE:  My friend (Catholic) has been in a bible study for 10 years with Protestants and fallen away Catholics.  Each person had various “interpretations” of what was read.  Many times there was never a “consensus”, just agree to disagree.  At a baseball game, everyone knows the rules but they turn to the umpire for the “final say”.  Fortunately, the Magesterium of The Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has the final say so that we are not lead astray.  satan wants division and he has it in 38,000 Protestant churches not agreeing on everything.  My friend has now joined me in Jeff Cavins’ Scripture Study I referenced in an earlier post and her eyes are being opened further.

Again—- please provide the chapter and verse in Holy Scripture where it states, ‘Scripture Alone’.  That seems to be your side’s entire argument but you are not following scripture because the bible does not say what you are intensely following.  But rather it is someone else’s interpretation of wanting the bible to say “scripture alone” has everyone sorely misguided as the bible is only half of the deposit of faith:

ASK YOURSELF: Is Holy Scripture Complete?  How Does One Know For Sure? If It Is Incomplete, Where Can One Find The Rest Of The Deposit Of Faith?

We know without a doubt that Holy Scripture is incomplete.  How do we know that?  Holy Scripture itself clearly tells us that it is incomplete.  Consider the following:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.  (Cf. John 20:30-31)

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”  (Cf. John 21:25).

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.  All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (Cf. John 16:12-15)

As we can see, Holy Scripture itself clearly states that it is incomplete.  Since we have seen that Holy Scripture is indeed incomplete, where is the rest of the Deposit of Faith?  Let’s consider the following citations:

“do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things—stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”.  (Cf. II Thess 2:5-15).

“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.  But I ask, have they not heard?  Indeed they have; for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” (Cf. Romans 10:17-18)

“Follow the pattern of the sound words, which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.”  (Cf. 2 Timothy 1:13)

“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”  (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:2)

“Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ.  Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.  No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.  Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you.  If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father.”  (Cf. 1 John 2:22)

“Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink.  Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.”  ........ (Cf. 2 John 12)

“Demetrius receives a good report from all, even from the truth itself.  We give our testimonial as well, and you know our testimony is true.  I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.  Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.” (Cf. 3 John 12-14)

May God bless you as you seek to find His Truth, Lisa

Lisa,
“Catholics do read the bible and we have the Magisterium of The Church to guide us with regard to the biblical interpretation.  Please provide the chapter and verse in Holy Scripture where it states, ‘Scripture Alone’.”
When Jesus was speaking to his disciples, He said after he departs, He would send the Holy Spirit. Jesus said “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” John ch16 vs13 - Roman Catholic New American Bible. What did Jesus mean in this verse?
The Apostle John said in his first epistle “As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.” 1 John ch2 vs27 RC New American Bible.  What is the anointing? Is it the Holy Spirit? Does every believer receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? (see 1 Corinthians 12:13)
Jesus also likened those who hear his saying to those who build their house on a rock; those who do not are likened to those who build on sand. (Luke ch7 vs47 to 49)  See also 1 John ch4 vs6 What was the apostle John saying in this verse? Are those who hear the Apostles through Holy Scripture the ones who are of God?

The Roman Catholic Church Guided By the Holy Spirit because:

“He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth.shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose.on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ......... (Cf. Matthew 16:15-19)

Note: In the passage above, Jesus changed Simon Bar-Jona’s name to ‘Peter’.  The word “peter” means “rock”.  He gave charge (i.e. the keys) of His Church on Earth to Peter.  The Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church.  Pope St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and his tomb lies beneath the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Italy.

To the Apostles (the first Roman Catholic Bishops) he said:  “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”  (Cf. Luke 10:16).

It is worthy of note that at last count there were 33,800 (2)  Christian denominations.  As is clear in Holy Scripture, Jesus transferred only one set of keys to the kingdom of heaven—not 12—and certainly not 33,800.

Likewise, He chose one set of Apostles, not 33,800 sets.

All Protestant churches claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.  How can this be true when no two of these 33,799 Protestant churches can agree on what they claim to be the truth inspired by the Holy Spirit?  Furthermore, how can this claim be true when there is only one inerrant Holy Spirit?

Where in the Bible does it say that one has the authority to establish another church other than the one that Jesus Christ established?  Why then were 33,799 more established if the rule is ‘Scripture Alone’?

“Unless the LORD build the house, they labor in vain who build.”

Lisa,
“As we can see, Holy Scripture itself clearly states that it is incomplete.”
I can’t see anywhere in the Scripture stating that it is incomplete. Those verse you quoted don’t actually say that. Saying that Jesus did many other things that are not recorded in Scripture is not the same as saying Scripture is incomplete. God inspired men to write in Scripture everything he wanted to communicate to man. There is no other Holy Scripture or writings or teachings that can be considered as inspired Holy Scripture since the books of the New Testament were completed in the Apostolic age. In order to write Holy Scripture one had to have the qualifications of an Apostle or Prophet. That is why the Apostles were selected as such. They had seen the resurrected Christ or had special miraculous powers which gave them the credentials of Apostles or Prophets. Those who wrote the Holy Scripture had to have been especially chosen as Apostles or Prophets. The Apostle Paul makes that clear. “The signs of an apostle were performed among you with all endurance, signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.” 2 Corinthians ch12 vs12. The authority conferred on the apostles and prophets who wrote the New Testament is agained demonstrated in this verse: “Announced originally through the Lord, it was confirmed for us by those who had heard. God added his testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power, and distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will.” Hebrews ch2 vs3b, 4.  Today, bishops (majesterium) claim to have the same authority as the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the New Testament, but they obviously have none of the credentials or qualifications which the Apostles and Prophets had spoken of in these verses; therefore must be imposters in claiming the authority of Apostles and adding new “inspired” revelation. In other words they claim the authority of Apostles, but have not seen the resurrected Christ, do not know anyone personally who has, and have no powers to perform signs and miracles as the Apostles had. Not only that, but the last chapter of the Bible warns against adding or taking away anything from the Bible. “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” Revelation ch22 vs18, 19 RC New American Bible.

I am leaving for an appt. so I’ll leave you with this:
“I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds
to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and IF ANYONE TAKES AWAY from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away
his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.”
Revelation ch22 vs18, 19 RC New American Bible.

So then…in the 1500’s, the Protestant Reformation / Luther DELETED 7 books from the bible that were contrary to his interpretation to God’s Word.  IE:  Macabees says pray for the dead - delete because instead the doctrine should read: “One saved, always saved”.  Other books deleted were of strong women…

More later

Luther didn’t delete any books from the Bible.  He considered the apocryphal books in the same way many in the early church did.  His German Bible included all the apocrypha.

Being a Lutheran, I can’t help but love the unity that we Lutherans possess in doctrine as opposed to the Roman Church.  There is, to be sure, an outward unity that is very visibly defined by locations and allegiance to people, but there is as much doctrinal division among papalists as there is among protestants. Hasn’t the charismatic movement ravaged your ranks as brutally as ours?  Haven’t the rationalists and the proponents of the social Gospel attacked the Gospel proportionately even greater in your churches than in ours?  And even if you have held off the tide of women’s ordination, for which I thank God, most Lutherans actually do not have women’s ordination.  It is only Western Lutherans who do.  Considering that they have sold their birthright in the doctrine of justification with the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, their influence is dying as swiftly as their numbers, so that they won’t be able to claim much representation of who we are in the near future.

The Confessional Lutheran Church is very strong, despite the storms that rage within and without.  The Roman Church will always hold the appeal of an outward unity that Lutherans have never claimed to have nor desired, since as the Lutherans still confess, the Church is where the Gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.  There is Christ’s body, there His sheep hear His voice, there there is no division, and that is what we have, thank God, in the Lutheran church, all of the devil’s attacks notwithstanding.

Many of the readers here still do not understand the meaning of sola scriptura. I’ve written several times on this site, in different ways, that in sola scriptura you are giving personal interpretations that can lead into errors. In sola scriptura, you are “deleting,” and “adding,” to the scriptures. Can’t you understand that? You are interpreting correctly at times; you are misinterpreting at times to the scriptures. That’s why there are thousands of contradictory sects. I’ve said in so many words that this is a dangerous road to take. Jesus is not the Author nor the Head of contradictory sects. How can He be? Can’t you understand that?
Many of you misunderstand the Holy Catholic Church. There is complete unity in the Catholic Church when the members are adhering to the Misgisterium of the Catholic Church, when the members are completely united to the Pope or the Papacy. When a Catholic is rebelling, he is going astray. He is a wayward child. He is possibly a heretic. Again, let me repeat. It does not make any sense at all for Jesus to establish a church and then let it go wrong, to teach contradictions and consequently errors, to teach heresy. It’s possible for just one error to send you to hell. No matter how sincere you are, you are not an infallible interpreter of the scriptures. What assurance can you give me that individual interpreters are protected by the Holy Spirit from making mistakes in their interpretations?
Only the church that Jesus founded is protected with the charism of infallibility. Not you nor anyone else. That Church is the Holy Catholic Church. No, Martin Luther didn’t set it straight. No, Charles Taze Russell did not set it straight. No, Calvin and Knox did not set it straight. None of the other founders of churches set the Catholic Church straight. Do you claim infallibility in faith and morals? If not, why should I even begin to listen to you? If I’m going to embrace a church, I will either embrace the church that claims infallibility in faith and morals, or none at all. Do you understand that? Since the Holy Catholic Church claims infallibility in faith and morals, and since Jesus is the founder of the Holy Catholic Church, I will go with Jesus and His church that He founded. How can I go to another church that at least claims fallibility implicitly? I would have to be out of my mind to do that. Can’t you understand?
TYPE IN “PAPACY OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH” ON YOUR COMPUTER AND START THERE, AND QUIT RELYING SOLELY ON SOLA SCRIPTURA. Don’t forget; sola scriptura can lead you to contradictions, fallible interpretations, and consequently to error. That’s a no, no. Let me reiterate; what assurance can you give me that the Holy Spirit is protecting you in such a way that you cannot make mistakes in personal interpretations? If you can’t do that, why should I even begin to listen to you? Sorry, but I’ll take my chances with the successor of Saint Peter, who was handed the “keys to the Kingdom of God.” Did you know that Peter is the only apostle who had his name changed? Do you know why? Did you know that Peter is always named first before all the other apostles? Do you why? Did you know that St. Peter is mentioned 128 times in the New Testament when all the other apostles are mentioned only 59 times put together? Do you wonder why? Did you know that I’m well versed in languages? I speak several and understand others? Did you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Latin? Did you know that in Aramaic, Kephas means rock and that it is masculine. In Latin, rock is in the feminine. Also in Spanish, but not in German. In German, rock is neuter. So languages would help you royally.
If you can accept the Holy Bible that the Holy Catholic Church gave you, why can’t you accept its history? SO LOOK UP “PAPACY OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH” ON INTERNET. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL. This is my last letter here. I’m too busy fighting Islam. Islam, too, is misunderstood by many including the good Muslims. So, Good Bye and may God bless you.

Sorry, I gave you my pin name, Truth Detector, on the above letter, that I use on other sites. My real name is Philip Saenz. It was nice visiting you. May God bless you again.

@Philip / TruthDetector:
THanks for speaking the truth so eloquently.  I pray for my Protestant friends and family to see His truth.  We share 85%, but they do not have the fullness of truth that Jesus gave His Church, The Catholic Church.  I thank God I was born a Catholic.  I thank Him for the rare skin cancer behind my eye (1 of 4 in the world) as I have come to know the Divine Physician in an even much more profound way over the last 10 years of dealing with it.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (not churchES), and the gates of Hades will NOT overcome it.”  ~ Matthew 16:17-19

God Bless all of you,
Lisa

Philip, Why does the Bible commend those at Beroea because they examined the scriptures daily to determine whether the things the Apostle Paul had taught them were so?

To Twelve Oaks, Answer: Because they were sincere but not necesserily infallible. Don’t forget that they didn’t possess all the scriptures. Don’t forget also that the Holy Catholic Church is the Author of the scriptures and not the other way around. First there was the church and then the scriptures. So the Holy Catholic Church is the Mother of the scriptures, and not the other way around. A friendly reminder: Are you an infallible interpreter of the scriptures? May God bless you. Good-bye.

Philip. Thanks for the reply.  If the people at Beroea could search the Scriptures to check whether an Apostle was teaching something not in accord with Scripture, why can’t people today do likewise with respect to someone who makes theological statements?

Lisa,
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth.shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose.on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ......... (Cf. Matthew 16:15-19)”
I understand the RC position on this verse. When the RC council debated this verse, they were not unanimous on what the word “rock” referred to. Some RC theologians thought it referred to Peter, some thought it referred to Christ, and some thought it referred to the confession that Peter made immediately before Christ said this. That is, when Peter said “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16 RC New American Bible.
Many Protestant scholars and ordinary believers think that is what the word rock is referring to, Peter’s confession of Jesus. The Greek word for Peter is “Petros”, a person, masculine word, and the Greek word for rock is “petra”, a feminine word, which refers not to a person, but to the declaration that Peter had just made: “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
You could write this verse this way: “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The truth that Peter confessed was what the church was to be built on. Peter had seen the basic truth. Nothing would overthrow this fundamental truth.  If Christ meant that Peter was the rock on which the church would be built, why would he change the word and gender to a different word? Doesn’t make sense.
In Ephesians ch2 vs19,20 the Bible tells us the church is built on the truth that the apostles and Christ revealed, with Christ being the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).
As for the keys, this is authority to preach the gospel which Christ commisioned the apostles to go out a do. This same authority given to Peter is given to the rest of the disciples in Matthew 18:18. “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt 18:18 This is the commission to go out and preach the gospel. Those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will not be saved.  It is nothing more than this.  The fundamental truth is that the church is built on Jesus Christ.
“But each one must be careful how builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians ch3 vs11.

Lisa,
I know Rome claims Peter was a Pope in Rome, but there is no evidence of that in the New Testament. Peter was apostle to the Jews in and around Jerusalem and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. There is no evidence Peter was stationed in Rome or even went there. No evidence he is buried in Rome. Paul was there quite a while but there is nothing mentioned in Paul’s epistles to indicate Peter visited him while he was in Rome. Why?

Paul, without causing you any offence, may I just say, the handing over the Keys to Peter, was an expectation that His father’s house would never be compromised or brought to disrepute through the centuries as it has been. His Father’s house was not to be based on contradictions either, “mental reservation”, to avoid direct honesty, such a thing Peter would never have thought of, or inspired to have made mention of.
We really need to get back to basics, as it was meant to be at the time of Peter’s faith, then it all falls into place.
Irrespective of what one thinks of QC Geoffrey Robinson, the contents of his recent book, The Case of the Pope, resonates too.
We are way off beam and limits.

WOW - SO MUCH GOOD STUFF IN THIS POST - THANKS TO ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION.

To Lisa in VA, you wrote, “The verse, 2 Tim. 3:16, reads: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching”.  It does NOT say that Scripture is to be used exclusively for teaching.”  Posted by Lisa in VA on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 10:27 AM (EDT):

Cradle’s reply-
I’ve often said the RCC has one foot in the Old Testament and one foot in the New Testament.  So it occured to me to draw everyone’s attention to what happened when King David ignored the Scripture in HIS day - when he was trying to bring the Ark of the Covenant back home, after it had been in Philistine’s hands.  He did not treat the Ark as God described, in the Book of Numbers, and he allowed a short-cut to be taken, because it seemed like a good idea to his men at the time.  God was NOT HAPPY.  When the Ark was about to tip over, and a man put his hand out to catch it, the man was instantly killed.  It freaked King David out so much that he just left the Ark in the house of a godly man, that was blessed by having it there for 3 months.  It was ONLY when King David searched the Scriptures (like the Bereans did with Paul) and learned specifically what God wanted, that the Ark was brought successfully home.  I’d say that is a PERFECT lesson for all of us about the importance of God’s Word.

And at 11:11AM, you wrote: “ASK YOURSELF: Is Holy Scripture Complete?  How Does One Know For Sure? If It Is Incomplete, Where Can One Find The Rest Of The Deposit Of Faith?”

While all the books in the world cannot contain all Jesus did in His short life, there are to be NO CONTRADICTIONS in what is in the New Testament and how we run our church today.  We are to be ONE Body of Christ - Born Agains from Roman Catholicism (and there are more like me) and of the main-line Protestant denominations, as well as even non-denominational home churches, like those of Acts of the Apostles, all following the Bible.  And it is SO easy to speak with all these people.  We are literally, on the same Page. 

Posted by Joseph D’Hippolito on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 2:43 PM (EDT):“In the vast majority of these posts, one thing is missing: any sense of Who Christ really is. He is more than Eucharist. He is humanity’s Redeemer, its Atoning Sacrifice, without whom humanity would be eternally condemned, and its Intercessor before God.”

Cradle’s reply- Excellent post, Joseph.  In the Roman Catholic church, God is way too small.  He fits into a church tabernacle, and perches on a monstrance, for people to visit Him.  The Holy Spirit takes His orders, from priests and the Magesterium.  NOW - a caveat: I love to visit churches, to meditate, pray and read my Bible, and I also LOVE to attend Benediction with the Exposition - and I frequently stop by parishes that have 24 hour Adoration.  BUT….. I am not worshipping the host.  If I do not have the Holy Spirit inside of me already, when I go to Mass, Adoration, etc., no amount of eating the Consecrated Hosts will fill me up with God.  No amount of Mass attendance will help me, IF my heart is not already right with God, and I am declared “righteous” by nothing I have done, but it is 100% by the precious Blood of Jesus.  It’s all in the whole Book of Romans. If only priests would preach Paul.

Joseph, you wrote, “Then again, this is what happens when people value group identity over Christ’s blood.”—To that, I say, “AMEN”.  No church membership will save us.  If only priests would teach matters of eternal value.

Pr. Mark A. Preus on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 12:41 PM wrote: “Luther didn’t delete any books from the Bible.  He considered the apocryphal books in the same way many in the early church did.  His German Bible included all the apocrypha.”

Cradle’s reply-
That is an excellent contribution, Pr. Mark.  I didn’t know that - I think the KEY is that while these books are good for history, and for examples for daily living, they ought not be used for doctrine, based on selective verses.

Posted by WayneM on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 8:05 PM (EDT) that wrote, “Lisa, I know Rome claims Peter was a Pope in Rome, but there is no evidence of that in the New Testament. Peter was apostle to the Jews in and around Jerusalem and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.”

Cradle’s reply-
Excellent point, WayneM.  In the Bible, Peter even described himself as another “elder”.  He did not make his ROLE to be any higher than anyone else.  And it was Paul that wrote what’s been called “The Christian Constitution”, the Book of Romans, not Peter.  Paul was also tutored in the desert, directly by the Holy Spirit (he mentions that in Galations.)

Posted by Lynne Newington on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 9:49 PM (EDT):
“Paul, without causing you any offence, may I just say, the handing over the Keys to Peter, was an expectation that His father’s house would never be compromised or brought to disrepute through the centuries as it has been.”

Cradle’s reply-
Please correct me, if I’m wrong, or if I’ve misinterpreted what you intended to say.  What you wrote above sounds like Jesus was not omniscient, and the Holy Spirit and God the Father were surprised by the turn of events in our church based on how I read what you wrote.  Am I correct?

“The Deposit of Faith” - to me, this is like if we go to our local bank, and inside a safe deposit box that is assigned to us, we put three items.
If we were to go back in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years, as long as the bank is in existence, we should expect to find the same three items in our boxes.  Not two items.  Not four items.  Not three damaged items.  But three items, and in precisely the same condition as we left them, years earlier.

When Jesus ascended into Heaven, He left the Church in place, and we are NOT to allow “some other doctrines” to creep in, and we are not to allow any parts of what He left us to be deleted, or changed.  This is the reason the Magesterium gives for not having the “authority” to allow women in the priesthood - and thank God for that.

But if we look at the RCC, in detail, there are PLENTY of instances where the Deposit of Faith has been ADDED to, and that has been CHANGED.  Jesus ought to have a Church structured in exactly the way He left it.  If our Magesterium held to the Deposit of Faith, as did Peter and Paul, and the others in the very early days - Acts of the Apostles - I’d have no problem going along with whatever they said, no questions asked.  The problem is that they do not.  Yet, there’s hope.  We know how it is supposed to be.  We have the Deposit of Faith as a reference.

“Posted by WayneM on Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 8:05 PM (EDT):Lisa,
I know Rome claims Peter was a Pope in Rome, but there is no evidence of that in the New Testament. Peter was apostle to the Jews in and around Jerusalem and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. There is no evidence Peter was stationed in Rome or even went there. No evidence he is buried in Rome. Paul was there quite a while but there is nothing mentioned in Paul’s epistles to indicate Peter visited him while he was in Rome. Why?”

UMMMM… could it be that none of Paul’s epistles were written WHILE he was in Rome? 

And there is plenty of evidence that Peter was indeed in Rome—just look up Irenaeus, I think it was, writing about 90-100 AD, and he even describes how the second ‘pope’, Linus, was chosen by not only Peter but Paul—together.  One could argue that Paul, who many protestants cling to as the ‘official’ gentile (read us) faith founder, saw a need to subsume this so called “Pauline strand” of the gospel church back into the one fold under the one vicar - Peter.

No I’m typoing I know how to spell my name and its not DAVD—oh well, to err is human

Cradle Catholic, I believe Christ is omniscient and no, the Holy Spirit and God the Father would not be surprised, but definately, definately grieved.
To tell you the truth, I feel grieved myself for what has been done in my name, believing this as I do.

Dave,
“UMMMM… could it be that none of Paul’s epistles were written WHILE he was in Rome?”
It is believed Paul was imprisoned in Rome the first time 62/63 A.D. during which he lived in a rented house (Acts 28:30).
Subsequently, after his fourth missionary journey, Paul was imprisoned under Emperor Nero c.66-67 A.D.
During this second imprisonment he wrote 2 Timothy. This time he was in a cold dungeon (2 Timothy 4:13) and he was chained like a common criminal (2 Timothy 1:16; 2:9) His friends had a hard time finding him (1:17) Paul knew his life was near an end (4:6-8). He was executed in Rome during the time of persecution under Emperor Nero.

Lisa writes: “We know without a doubt that Holy Scripture is incomplete.  How do we know that?  Holy Scripture itself clearly tells us that it is incomplete.”

Lisa, the single revelation of God comes to completion with Christ and the witness borne to him in the books of the New Testament.

I’m sorry I was drawn back. I mentioned that I was fighting Islam. But I’m back because of what I have been reading. Incredible! Since when did the New Testament become a history book? It’s not a history book! The New Testament gives only a very short account of a few disciples of Jesus, Jesus’ life, and what he said, and a few other things. Gee! I can’t believe what I’ve been reading! Where are some of you getting your history? Maybe from Jimmy Swaggart? Ted Haggard? Even St. John had this to say in Chapter 21, verse 25: “And I suppose that if all the other events in Jesus’ life were written, the whole world could hardly contain the books”! Please, think, think, think. One more thing, who told you that we don’t know that St. Peter was not in Rome? Maybe your tooth fairy? How many of you know that there was another St. Peter church underneath the “modern” St. Peter in Rome? There are still remnants of the first St. Church church underneath the “new” St. Peter church. I’ve seen it. How many of you know that St. Peter was buried in the old St. Peter church? St. Peter’s grave was discovered in the old St. Peter. When the excavators reached St. Peter’s tomb, since they knew Peter was there, the headstone read: “Tu es Petrus,” which means, “You are Peter.” Of course the excavators found only bones. Again, allow me to refresh your minds. I’d rather believe the witness that was present, the witness that “saw,” and “heard,” i.e., the Holy Catholic Church and NOT so-called witnesses that came 15 hundred years later. Don’t forget that some people hate the Catholic Church. They’ll make up all kinds of stories to put Christianity and the Catholic Church in a bad light. Let me reiterate: If you can believe the New Testament that was compiled by the Holy Catholic Church in 397 Anno Domini, then why can’t you believe the history of the Holy Catholic Church? Remember that the Holy Catholic Church is the Mother of the New Testament, and not the other way around. In other words, the New Testament is a product of the Holy Catholic Church, and not the other way around. The Holy Catholic Church was not lost when it had to go without scriptures, and it is not lost today. Did you know that the last scripture of the Holy Bible was written in 97 Anno Domini? Did you know that there were more than 300 epistles, i.e., letters, and gospels when the New Testament was compiled by the Holy Catholic Church in Carthage? The Vatican still has the originals. Did you know there were scant few Bibles before the printing press was invented about 1530 AD by Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic? Did you know that the Holy Bible was the first book printed by good old Johann Gutenberg the pious Catholic?
For those who obstinately maintain that St. Peter wasn’t the first pope, then give us the name of the “first pope.” Where will you get your “history” for your “proof”? From Jimmy Swaggart, perhaps? If so, where did he get his information? Are you aware that if you refer to much history of Christianity, of long ago, you will have to go to what the Catholic Church put out? Where else can you? Would you care to comment? If you comment, tell us the source and year. Please think! May God Bless You. And don’t be so obstinate!

I “converted” from Lutheranism to Roman Catholicism in 2001. I could give my reasons for this but I don’t think the matter was necessarily in my hands, let it suffice to say I was “attracted” to the Church, but not because it was more conservative than say the ELCA. I am and always have been far more liberal in my views than most Christians, Catholic or otherwise. I regret the preponderant anti-gay attitudes of Christians - let me put it this way: a fellow parishioner recently told me that he could not get a job in Hollywood because he was neither gay nor a Jew, in the next breath he went on to make some vary disparaging comments about another parishioner that happened to be black. Some will want to say that this attitude reflects this individuals bigotry and not the teaching of the Church, but as a lay person I can tell you that this is where the rubber meets the road and mud on this road sullies us all. It should not surprise you to know that I am a liberal in Hollywood, a liberal Catholic in Hollywood would seem to be something of a paradox, but what I mean by liberal Catholic is one that does not judge his neighbor because he is gay and one who is generally skeptical of the moral hegemony sought by any religion, church, party or any other ideologically oriented organization.

For example the Rev . Ted Pike could be an excellent type for many liberal Catholics, for whom strict

and deep admiration and conduct of the R.Catholic way of serving God is “too old fashion” and necessary.

YOU BEEN THROUGH THESE DISCUSSIONS ALREADY FOR FIEW DAYS. AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE SERIOUS TO
DEEPEN YOUR FAITH. IN CERTAIN WAY,THIS DISCUSSIONS COULD BE FOR YOU EITHER BENEFIT,OR TROUBLE.
I TELL YOU WHY. JESUS WILL JUR4GE US ACCORDING OUR ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE HEARD THE TRUTRH
AND ACCEPTED IT OR DISCARDED IT. IF WHAT THESE BROTHERS AND SISTERS TRYED TO TELL AND TEACH YOU WAS TRUTH AND YOU REJECTED IT, ONLY JESUS COULD NOW, AND JUDGE ACCORDINGLY. IN YOUR PLACE
IN YOUR MIND ASK JESUS RTO ENLIGHTEN YOU. I WILL PRAY ROSARY THIS EVENING FOR YOU. GOD BLESS YOU AND HELP YOU TO DISCERN. YOURS ETEAN.

Cradle, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.”  It sounds almost insulting the way you say “consecrated host”.  If you are Catholic you should know that hidden in the form of that host is Jesus Christ, truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity.
Otherwood, So glad you put converted in parenthesis because you obviously have not yet understood the Roman Catholic Faith.  No Catholic is “judging someone” for being homosexually active or any other type of sinner.  We are saying homosexual relations are sinful and Jesus Christ has overcome all sin and by His grace you are able to either bear your cross and refrain from immoral sexual activity or you will be healed.  No matter how much the world may embrace the flesh in any form, Christians know sins of the flesh and they know we have died to the flesh with Christ and live in the Spirit. The Church teaches what is obvious through nature even to those who do not know God, homosexual relations are objectively disordered.  Men were created to mate with women and vice versa. When we go against nature or sin there are alot of negative consequences that affect not just ourselves but the whole body of Christ.  What your parishioner friend might have been saying to you is that he could not get a job because he wasn’t willing to deny his beliefs to satisfy the secular agenda.  And then again he might have been bigoted. But I hope you asked for clarification or gently corrected him.  God bless.

Pam - It seems as if a lot of what folks write sounds insulting to you. 
I said “consecrated host” as opposed to an UNconsecrated host, because there IS a difference between hosts that are being brought TO the altar, PRIOR TO CONSECRATION, and the Ones distributed during Communion.

I do not believe we need a priest to make that happen - but I do believe “The Great Amen” of the congregation, the Body of Christ, is what makes Jesus present, not only in Spirit, as He is everywhere, and not only in the People, and in the Word, but in the Consecrated Host too.

If I may be frank, Pam, I was offended when you wrote, “Men were created to mate with women and vice versa.”  Men & women do not “mate”. Rather, animals “mate”.  Perhaps you can find a better word, for what God designed for intimacy in marriage between one man & one woman?  Reading the Song of Solomon will help greatly.

Cradle, It is Jesus. Truly present.  You say you don’t worship the host, but the host is Jesus Christ. You say He is too small in our Church because He fits in the tabernacle? Thank you God that I feel insulted. He didn’t consult you?  Cradle I will say it again. You are making up your own religion.  It is very dangerous to your soul.  Two thousand years of saints and you know more than all of them. 
Sorry if the word mating offended you.  It was not in reference to married love. It was in reference to disordered v. ordered relations.

WayneM, the above e mail did not work properly.
In Eastern Europe,Lutheran departed from Catholics,after
Luther nailed on the door his 95 or so demands. About 30% of them formed strong religion. That time many
fights were raging in the name of the “True Christ” ?? Aristocracy and nobility,did not want to follow strict Catholic way of religion life. In England at one point 40 Catholic priests were discovered and in the town
square brutally tied up to poles while kettle of boiling water was ready. Then when at the presence of
crowd wild people watched as the hangmen been cutting the belly and pulling out the intestine from the living
martyrs and dropping it to boiling water. That was the order of the King Henry VIII. Also some atrocity was in eastern Europe by Catholics against Lutherans but no to same horror.. If the devil did not instigate the split of the one true faith of Roman Church, these tragedies would no happen. Latest pope John Paul II apologized all non Catholic religions for such atrocity by Catholics in the past. However nobody up to now did the same to Catholics for their brutality.
In these days religions live peacefully side by side in an ecumenical tolerance. In Slovakia there are cca. 7% Protestants and 73% Catholic and Greek Catholics.
WayneM. Please read the begining of my message to you above{March 25 2011 7:34 PM EDT|  Etean

Cradle Catholic, Pam
I just wanted to say I agree with much of what Cradle says. The crux of the matter is the interpretation of John ch.6. When Jesus said “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:54.  Reformed churches and many other evangelical churches interpret these words to be symbolic of believing in Christ.  There are many verses in the gospel of John which show that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ. One example is the famous verse “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 If eternal life comes by eating the physical body and blood of Christ, then there must be two ways to receive eternal life; one by eating Jesus’ literal body and blood and one by faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. Jesus made it clear in John chap. 6 that he did not mean that one must eat his body and blood literally; if we look further down in the chapter, we find that Jesus’ disciples had trouble understanding what Jesus meant about eating his body literally. (verse 61) Then he clarified it for them. “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John ch6 vs 62, 63.  Plainly Jesus said here he was not referring to eating his flesh literally. He said the flesh profiteth nothing. He explains it was mean in a spiritual sense. That is to say, by believing in Jesus as Saviour and that he died and shed His blood for our sins, we are eating his flesh and drinking his blood spiritually, which is what he meant.  Further evidence that this is the correct interpretation is supported by the fact that Jesus spoke these words two passovers before the Last Supper. The communion service which was commissioned in the last supper had not yet been started at the time of John chap.6.  Another point to consider is that eating the flesh and blood literally would be cannibalism which is forbidden for christians in the Bible. There are many examples of figurative language being used in the New Testament. The use of figurative language by the writers of the N.T. was common. Such is the case in John chap.6.

Etean,
I read both of your posts above. Yes, I undertand there were some atrocities committed back in the middle (dark) ages. Henry VIII was a brutal man and did some terrible things. The Spanish Inquistion ran for 400 years from about 1200 A.D. until 1805 A.D. and resulted in the torture, imprisonment, and loss of a great many lives of “heretics” and others. There have also been many brutal and cruel things done in the name of religion in eastern Europe and other places even in the 20th century. But I don’t want to dwell on those kinds of things as they will serve no useful purpose to do so. There is no point in dragging all that up and re-hashing it.  If we can agree those things that happened in history were bad and we regret that they happened, we will have come a long way to a better future. I don’t think that most people support or agree with those kinds of brutal things that were done in the name of religion in the past. Let us not go there. In the west these days there is much more tolerance and respect for freedom of religion than there was back in history.  I prefer to look to the future at the promises of God in the Bible and the wonderful salvation which is in Jesus Christ as revealed in His Word.  Regards.

I am not smart enough to make theological judgements, they are often just too subtle for my limited intellect, but I thought that one converted to Christ in baptism; we are not baptised again if we “convert” from Protestantism to Catholicism, hence the quotes. Further if you believe that “no Catholic is ‘judging someone…” I’m sorry but I am too old and too experienced to buy that, one doesn’t have to be a theologian to know that there are hypocrites among us, nor do I consider it my calling to admonish every instance of bigotry I am exposed to in the presence of my fellow parishioners which brings me to my point, which I thought was obvious enough: if the Church does not condemn the altogether too flagrant bigotry and hatred, on the part of Christians toward homosexuals, from the pulpit, in homilies and sermons etc. whence stems authority,(for I personally have no authority) then it is at least tacitly condoning it. Further, heterosexual “love” even between married Catholics can and often is disordered too, i.e. homosexual sexuality is not the only form of disordered sexuality, but we regard these presumably heterosexual disorders with secular tact.

Lisa writes: “We need to remember that the one of the beauties of the Catholic faith is the teaching that ALL the writings, both scripture and those of the Early Church Father’s were Divinely inspired. Even the writing of the Holy Father in this era, and those down through the centuries were and are inspired by God.”

That observation is incorrect.  If the writings of the early church fathers are inspired, they would not have any errors.  However, they do have errors, because the church fathers often contradict each other.  Therefore, the writings of the early church fathers are not inspired.

Joseph D’Hippolito is right in stating that the New Testament is an historic document. This point extends to the Old Testament as well.  The Bible contains various types of literature, i.e. poetry, law, wisdom, apocalyptic history, didactic, prophetic, etc.  If history is a body of knowledge about the past written by historians, the Bible qualifies.  The aim of the writers is not to tell us everything about the history from Gen 1:1 to 100 A.D., but it is nonetheless history. All historians limit their material.  The Bible New Testament documents are the best attested historic documents from the entire ancient world.

Reading the comment of Otherwood March 25. really sadened me. The judgemental and individual bigotry by those within the church, have their head in the sand. The ‘public’ face of the the rest, as in members of the hierachy, leaves much to be desired to.
Richard Sipe, an ex Benedictine monk, and registered health counsellor, has alot to say about it too.
Many young seminarians, contracting aids through homosexual activitiy have been pushed out of the priesthood in shame. Ashamed to tell their parents, deprived of the comfort of extended family, to die disconnected.
Many taking their own lives prematurely.
When one considers many who are active, whether introduced in the seminary, through naivety or other, who are clergy, it beggars belief.
To this end, I contacted Richard through his website to make sure of the validity. 
Richard has his own stories to tell through his years as a professional and I recommened his site to any who are interested enough see, the heartlessness beneath the cloak our “Mother Church”.
The site: Clergy In Crisis; Never Another Pat. Richard Sipe.

Lynne - while I am not a survivor of clergy abuse, I know many people, men and women, that are, and at a class reunion two years ago, I learned that a classmate (boy) when he was pre=teen, was molested by a childhood pastor.  That case will never see the light of day - but the TRUST issue is something that affects ALL of us.

We simply cannot trust clergy now.  That needs to be addressed.  Many survivors are being poorly treated, and all the get is lip-service and a stream of apologies (albeit sincere) from bishops.  But we need healthy, God-honoring change.

Folks that were molested, and that did not make it to “survivor” have already committed suicide.  Another victim of my childhood pastor is in that group.  At the class reunion, I finally figured out why this peer left the name of the pastor in his suicide note, 15 years ago.

I pray that with the Lutherans coming into the Catholic fold, we will have the healthy GOD-HONORING change we need.  The Bible is the inspired Word of God.  We reverence it on Sundays at Mass.  And the BEST way to show our worship of God is to OBEY His Word.  Only the Bible is trustworthy and error free.  We can take its instruction to the bank. 

Church Fathers disagreed with each other.  Look at Origen - he isn’t even called a “saint” because some of his beliefs were not in alignment with the Vatican then.  Yet, Pope Benedict has been quoting Origen a LOT lately, and giving him more credibility.  Origen had himself castrated!
It was all part of a pagan idea that celibacy is a more superior state than that of marriage.  It’s not New Testament Christian.  Read Paul (in context!)

Wayne, Jesus was so serious aabout us eating His body and drinking His blood that He watched all his followers walk away. “Who can accept this?” they said.  But He didn’t stop them and say,“Oh I didn’t mean that literally!” NO! Instead He turned to His disciples and asked if they would like to walk away too!  Then He had the last supper and at that supper He took the bread, blessed God and said “Take this all of you and eat it.  This is My Body which willbe given up for you. Do this is rememberance of me.”  Then He took the cup of wine and said “Take this all of you and drink it.  This is the cup of My Blood.  The Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant.  Do this in memory of me.  He is God. He said it was His body. He said it was His blood.  Those who didn’t walk away received it.  Did you ever notice that after His resurrection every time He was with His disciples and broke the bread, He disappeared!  At Emmaeus, w/ the Apostles.  I believe it is because as soon as He blessed the bread He was in it and in THEM!  How wonderful and amazing! The only times He didn’t disappear He was eating fish!  Oh ye of little faith!
@Otherwood and those who agree with him:  Sin is REAL and it has serious consequences.  Homosexual relations are sinful.  You rely so heavily on the Bible until it comes to a social issue you disagree with.  Sins of the flesh are so offensive to God, He destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah. Paul warns us, “Do not be deceived no fornicator, no adulterer, no sodomite will enter the kingdom of God.”  Those who are so enamored of Paul, try to pass over this statement, but it is very clear.  You can not be bound to sins of the flesh and be born in the spirit.  The two oppose each other.  If you really loved people who were tempted to this sin you would not encourage homosexual relations, but set their sights on things above.

Dear Pam,
“Wayne, Jesus was so serious about us eating His body and drinking His blood that He watched all his followers walk away. “Who can accept this?””
I don’t doubt your sincerity in believing that.  You said that when he was with the apostles at Emmaeus, he blessed the bread, was in it, and disappeared. If that were the case, why did Jesus not disappear from the table at the Last Supper when He instituted the communion service? He was still physically present reclining at the table.
Jesus did say do this in remembrance of me. If something is done in remembrance, that means it is not literal. Otherwise why would Jesus say do this in remembrance of me.

Dear Pam,
“Wayne, Jesus was so serious aabout us eating His body and drinking His blood that He watched all his followers walk away. “Who can accept this?” they said.  But He didn’t stop them and say,“Oh I didn’t mean that literally!””
But Jesus did say in effect that the words which He had spoken to them were to be taken spiritually, not literally. Examine John 6 vs63 again. “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” RC New American Bible. In this verse would you say Jesus is telling those disciples who had taken his words about eating and drinking His flesh and blood literally that He meant it in a spiritual sense?

Cradle Catholic,
“And the BEST way to show our worship of God is to OBEY His Word.  Only the Bible is trustworthy and error free.  We can take its instruction to the bank.”
Amen!

the best comments i’ve read in a long time

“Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it” -Blaise Pascal

Not being known doesn’t stop the truth from being true. -Richard Bach

He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright -Blaise Pascal

Wisdom is found only in truth. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Why is the truth of the Catholic Church obvious to only a few? What other christian group can claim to be founded by Christ himself? The only logical argument that can be constructed is that either Christ founded the Catholic Church or Christ did not found a church.  Why would he want his followers to be in such disarray in doctrinal matters? Why would he want them to be divided and battling each other? Who speaks for Christ once he is gone? Sometimes I wonder why Christ would allow the truth of Catholicism to remain so hidden and elusive to the masses.  Of all religions, only Catholicism can stand scrutiny from any perspective.  Most religions do not even try, admitting no alliance with reason.  Catholicism’s weakness is its underestimation by its members, unaware of its profound intellectual strength.  If one wanted a perfect religion, it would be Catholicism.  If this is not truth, then what is it? Who founded it and why? It must be the biggest scam in the history of the world.  Just because one cannot imagine its true does not mean it is not. A truly educated and wise person is a Catholic who takes his or her faith seriously.

“To be deep in History is to cease to be Protestant” -Newman

Wayne and Cradle, When you eat Christ’s body and drink His Blood, you receive Him -not dead but ALIVE, fully GOD fully MAN and so His Spirit enters you.  He had not yet given Himself completely at the last Supper so He did not yet disappear, but I’m sure He gave Himself to them in some way even that night.  God is mystery. We won’t know it all. He let everyone walk away Wayne because He is Truth and He can not go along with the lie. He put Himself in the appearance of bread and wine because of our littleness and thinking like you are saying.  It isn’t cannibalism.  He isn’t dead meat.  It is miraculous. And to protect your sensitive nature He made Himself bread.  Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground…. When He spoke of living in Spirit He was speaking of the two opposite pulls, the flesh and the spirit.
Thanks Julian for the beautiful quotes

Pam, you say, “When you eat Christ’s body and drink His Blood, you receive Him -not dead but ALIVE, fully GOD fully MAN and so His Spirit enters you.”

Does the Catholic Church teach that this the only way His Spirit enters a person?  In other words, does the Spirit enter only on account of a person participating in the Eucharist, or can a person who does not participate in the Eucharist also have the indwelling Spirit?

Twelve Oaks, We receive Jesus Christ fully present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist.  We receive HIM.  People receive the Holy Spirit as God wills.  It’s two different things.  Sorry if I confused you.

Julian,
“What other christian group can claim to be founded by Christ himself?”
You are correct in saying Christ founded a church. But what is the “church”? Is it a hierarchical structure whose head is in Rome or is it a body of believers who are in Christ by faith through grace and found whereever the true gospel is preached and believers are gathered to worship God in accordance with the New Testament model of the church? I believe it is the latter. “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Ephesians ch2 vs19,20. RC New American Bible. These verses give us a good description of the church. As the verses say, the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Holy Scripture) and has Christ Jesus as it’s capstone (head, foundation). The only way to become a member of this one catholic (universal) church is by the new birth. As Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, one must be born again from above. That is a spiritual birth. One must be born again by the Holy Spirit. Eternal life is assured for those who are born again by the Spirit. My question is what is “truth” and where and how does one find it? How can one be sure he has the “truth”?

WayneM - you asked, “My question is what is “truth” and where and how does one find it? How can one be sure he has the “truth”?”

Cradle’s reply-
Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life, and no one comes to the Father, but by Him.  We meet The Truth= Jesus, in HIS STORY, history - and found in The Bible.  The Old Testament points to His coming, the New Testament describes His Life.  Revelation is the only Book of Prophecy for us New Testament people, because much of what it reveals is yet to be fulfilled.  How important it is for us to READ the Bible, so of us, it will not be said, “My people perish, for lack of KNOWLEDGE.”

I agree with Julian that this blog has some of the best comments in a long time!  My thanks to all!

Wayne, Pilate asked that question too. But he asked it dismissively.  Jesus is the Truth and He asked us to come together to remember Him with the Eucharist and the Word so the truth is that both the individual and the collective group with its structures and hierarchy are the Church.  The Church is the people, the building, the mission - it’s alot of things and none need exclude the other, except that we aren’t a Church unto ourselves - we are part of a body.

I would on the face of the post have to agree that this exodus is due to the mixed messages in the Protestant American Christian Evangelical Movement (PACEM)and especially in the rural areas of this Country.
Not long ago this group, not by name, but by the organization of Protestantism, listed in “God’s War” the polemic known to most Catholics, there is a disdain for all things Catholic but once members of the organization takes time to attend a great and majestic Mass in a great or less great Catholic Church and discuss the beauty thereof the change is easy.
The antithesis to Catholics which builds from the recent scandal, that none expected, caused too many to lose focus that men not the Church committed the amoral so scandalizing others of the great Catholic tradition.
I pray for that conversion of souls and this article made my day.
Sic Transit Gloria

Joe, it goes much deeper than an antithesis for many, and the faith in God remains but where they can reach Him and where they are at.
I have known both men and women so traumatized that even a crucifix has an effect on them and the spiritual post-traumatic affect on many of those who have actually been abused oer and over again,it never dissipates with catholic and non-catholc counsellig and psychotherapy.
The sight of clergy prevents any comfort from the great Catholic tradition which insidiously, has betrayed so many for decades which under the surface, these rituals and traditions have condoned the false shepherds, ignoring what has been happening under their noses, and with full succor, moving their priest’s from parish to parish and in many many instances, overseas to re-offend.
This is a crime that can never be paid for in real time, as spirits have been cauterised and very few can gradually ease their way back. 
We don’t come off a conveyer belt, everybody is made differently, including spiritually.

Pam,
You speak about the importance of the Eucharist in your religion. This limits God to being present in a miniscule way in a box in a little round wafer. “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all live, and breath, and all things.” Acts ch17 vs24 These verses show the impossibliity of that. That is why I believe the communion service is a memorial of Christ’s death and the elements are simply symbols of His shed body and blood for our sins. We do not believe Christ is in the elements in any way. We do not worship the elements.

Pam,
“Wayne and Cradle, When you eat Christ’s body and drink His Blood, you
receive Him -not dead but ALIVE, fully GOD fully MAN and so His Spirit
enters you.”
I don’t worship the bread or wine in the Lord’s Supper. That would be idolatry. Christians don’t require a communion service or Lord’s supper to receive Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christians believe Christ and the Holy Spirit dwells in them always. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13 Jesus has said He will never leave His elect.  Read 1 John

Wayne, Christ being truly present in the Eucharist in NO way prevents Him from being present in all creation.  You agree on our own we can not save ourselves. We are fed Him to receive the grace and to grow more like Him.  You would not want to grow physically and refuse to eat, would you?  Well He has given Himself so that when we eat Him we grow spiritually.  “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.”  Holding the bread He said, “Take all of you and eat it. This is my body…”  It is a mystery!  And a beautiful one! There is no idolatry.  We do not worship the bread or the wine.  We worship Jesus Christ truly present in the bread and wine after the consecration.  There are Bible verses that say Jesus will make His home again with us like the days in Jerusalem. I don’t know them off the top of my head, but if you will go and sit before the tabernacle and pray asking for the truth, He will show you that He is truly present.  He is truly present with His elect in the Eucharist.  So many Catholics have experienced Him there.  Sorry this is a stumbling block for you.  The verse from Acts that you quote was made to the Greek pagans who were worshipping all kinds of God.  Paul was explaining God wasn’t stone or bronze. He is in all things and created all things.  Paul also handed down what was given to Him by the Apostles, that at the last supper Christ took the bread and blessed it.  If you read things piecemeal you won’t find the whole truth.  This verse you quote is trying to lead the Greeks to understand the concept of the one God.  It is not refuting Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. God bless.

Wayne,
Actually, it seems to me, that you’re the one who is limiting Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe. As Catholics, we believe that Christ is present to us in four distinct ways, particularly when we worship Him at Mass. He is present to us in His Word, in the person of the priest, in one another, and through His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. To suggest that he is unable to be present in the bread, as he clearly says he is in John 6, seems rather limiting, doesn’t it? After all, He is God. Many of his disciples ceased following him when he spoke of the need to “eat of this bread” (John 6:66).

Tim, Pam,
Jesus’ statements in John ch.6 were not meant to be taken literally. Jesus was not speaking about the Lord’s supper in that chapter. He spoke the words in John ch6 two passovers before He insituted the Lord’s supper at the last supper. What Jesus was talking about in John ch6 was metaphorical. Jesus used the metaphors of eating and drinking his flesh and blood as symbolic of believing in Him.  Jesus said “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” John ch6 vs35 RC New American Bible.  Believing or faith is what He is talking about. We come to Jesus by faith; not by eating a piece of bread.
This is made clear over and over in the gospel of John. When the crowd asked Jesus what they could do to accomplish the works of God, “Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” John 6:29 Verse 66 says many of disciples left Him and returned to their former ways of life. The reason they left Him was because they did not have faith in Jesus as Messiah and misunderstood His words about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. They also may have taken His words literally and could not believe it. But Jesus told us in verse 63 that his words were not mean in a literal sense, but were to be understood in a spiritual sense which I have explained. “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:62-63.  Jesus asks what they would think when the He ascends to heaven bodily? In other words how could what he said mean to physically eat his body and blood if he were not present, if he ascends into heaven? The answer He gives is that it is the spirit that gives life. It is simply by believing in Christ that one receives eternal life. Eternal life and forgiveness of sin is received when one first believes in Christ as one’s own personal Saviour and is born again by the Holy Spirit. But if one believes there are priests required to make offering for sin, how is one believing in Christ as Saviour? You said the priest is another Christ, but how can that be when there are no earthly priests in the New Testament time required to offer sacrifice for sin?  Every believer is a kind of priest, but not to make atonement for sin. How does Jesus’ once for all sacrifice on the cross work if one needs priests to repeatedly offer Masses?  Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews tells us Jesus Christ is the only mediator and priest now. There are no more priests able to offer sacrifice for sin. Ref. Hebrews

I think it’s important to note that in non-Catholic Christian churches, when they have Communion, they are very mindful of the sacredness of what they are doing.  It is not casual.  Communion is taken very seriously.  If one is not Christian, one is politely asked to pass on receiving the bread and wine.  It is 100% in memory of Christ’s death and resurrection, for our sin, and it is 100% the congregation participating in the Communion, as one Body, one Body of Christ.

We are a priesthood of believers, and we are called to MAKE DISCIPLES of others.  The only way WE can make disciples of others is if we understand our faith and our commission.  It really is time for all of us to get into the Word, as Tim Drake wrote, Jesus is present in the Word at Mass.
It’s time for everyone that calls himself/herself “Christian” to focus on matters of Eternal Value.  We can’t teach what we don’t understand.

In Revelation, John was brought to tears, because there was NO ONE WORTHY to open the scroll, until Jesus, the Perfect Lamb of God, who was worthy.
So yes, there is no need for anymore sacrifice for sin.  Jesus said, “It is finished.”  He sat down at God’s right Hand, and He will come again, so we’d best all be ready for Him.  He wants obedience from us- and His Word is what He wants obeyed.  The BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.  Let’s just be sure the Lutherans can teach God’s Word, and let’s insist our own Catholic priests can teach It too.

Re: Lynn
I agree with the conveyor analogy, that is the beauty of Catholicism, and that may be the “Magesterium effect” on the Catholic faith.
The march to redemption is not an easy task, it does take belief as the Bible has directed, the faith and belief of a child, that is not altogether symplistic but the truth of faith.
There are too many who may cite the Bible and find the citation not in sync with another Bible, which leads to division in Christendom, Catholicism provides the correct path.
I do pray others seek out the faith we share.

Cradle,
“think it’s important to note that in non-Catholic Christian churches, when they have Communion, they are very mindful of the sacredness of what they are doing.  It is not casual.  Communion is taken very seriously.  If one is not Christian, one is politely asked to pass on receiving the bread and wine.  It is 100% in memory of Christ’s death and resurrection, for our sin, and it is 100% the congregation participating in the Communion, as one Body, one Body of Christ.”
You are absolutely correct. It should have been mentioned.  The Lord’s Supper or Communion Service is not taken lightly in Reformed or Presbyterian churches, or other churches for that matter.  Am I correct in understanding you belong to the RC Church? You seem to have a very good knowledge of the Bible and what other churches believe. You don’t have to tell me of course, but I was just curious as to why you belong to the RCC. Sounds like you would fit in better in a Protestant church, maybe a Reformed or good bible Presbyterian church.

Do you know Cradle Cath. I really believe sincere non-Catholc christians take things far for seriously than Catholics as far as communion is concerned, not even believing in the Real Presence. Do you know why? Because they have to examination their conscience and be accountable THEMSELVES before God directly, whereby we through the priest, who can claim being “only human” when they do wrong, and I mean really wrong, (committing henious crimes) knowing full well they have the protection of the seal) is the mediator between God and the penitent; “magically”, with the placing of the Confessional Stole around their neck, become Christ in persona.
I’s all a matter of acceptance, by faith and a little hard to swallow for many of us today, when we see what they have gotten away with in collusion with their superiors, to protect the priesthood.
Nothing really Godly about that, in fact it’s spiritual contagion and intristically evil.
That’s just my no nonsense non-Catholic upbringing breaking through I suppose, but a spiritually healthier by product of how I was reared at the knee.

To WayneM- Everyone on both sides of my family are Roman Catholic, and for generations.  My sister-in-law even converted from Episcopalean to Catholic, so their family can worship in unity, to the angst of her mother.  Being Roman Catholic was important to my family.

I believe the Body of Christ is ONE BODY, so I don’t consider it too important WHERE I worship, as much as it is that I am in union with some members of the REAL Body of Christ - with other Christians, be they Roman Catholic, or non-denominational, etc.

Believe it or not, there are a LOT of Roman Catholics, cradle Catholics such as myself, that one day decided to read the Bible, and—WE TURNED INTO PROTESTANTS—but… we never left the Roman Catholic church.  So the Roman Catholic Church WILL HAVE TO DEAL with the numerous folks like me, those that are not easy to fool, or those that kow-tow to man-made doctrines.  We just worship God in Spirit & in Truth- His Truth, not our own truths.

The reading last Sunday was the Samaritan woman that asked WHERE Jews worshiped, compared to Samaritans. Jesus said something like, “The day will come, and it is indeed here, when people will worship in Spirit and in Truth”.  So even for Jesus, it was not so much WHERE we worship, as HOW we worship.  So - Protestant, Reformed, good Bible-believing Presbeyerian, Roman Catholic = it just must be in Truth.

The Bible is the Gold Standard of Measure for Truth. J. Vernon McGee used to say, “I believe everything in the Bible, from the Table of Contents to the Maps” I agree with that.  While everything in it is not written to me, it’s written FOR me, and it’s what God wants me to know, in order to obey Him, which is what it is to worship Him, in truth.

The Body of Christ has no denomination.  Jesus, my Lord and my Savior, was a Jew - He wasn’t Roman Catholic!  <grin> I attend a weekly Bible study at a Roman Catholic parish, where there are a few non-Catholic Christians that join us too.  = the Body of Christ!

Cradle

Well said, that many have turned protestant does not imply leaving the Catholic Church. It means that within the Catholicism, as another cradle Catholic, we question, may even become somewhat agnostic, Catholicism has an abundance of tolerance and acceptance for those who search.
The fellowships which you ascribe, I saw was in a Catholic Parrish, I would like you opinion on these meetings. Do you come to a singular consensus from the discussions?
The Body of Christ is the idea and ideal we all come to…post Vatican II that was not always the end goal. Again, nicely put. I understand your Catholicism very well.
Sic Transit Gloria

Lynne- I agree with you 100%.  For all the talk about Catholics having the “fullness”- Protestants I know take Communion much more reverently than most Catholics.

Based on reading Scripture, it is my conviction there is no such thing as “en persona Cristi” or “alter Cristi”, or for that matter, a “Vicar of Christ” on earth.

There is no such thing as ordained men being “a priest forever, according to” the order of Melchezedeck.  That verse belongs only to Jesus.  There is only ONE Jesus.  He is Head of the Church.  Everyone else merely has a *role* to play in His church.

There is “no one holy, no not one.”  Our church has dangerously put tag names on mere men, no matter how well-meaning the men may be, such as “other Christs”, “in the person of Christ” & “representing Christ”. 

We SEE the results of how bad it can be, when priests, bishops and even popes disappoint us by their sins of co-mission & omission; and then many say, “Oh, well.  They’re just men.  Let’s all forgive & forget.”

If only we Catholics would keep our collective noses in the Bible, reading St. Paul!  We will face God alone - at some point - & our church association will mean squat.  Nothing.  Zip.  Nada.  Worthless.  Being Roman Catholic, having the “fullness”?  Adolph Hitler was baptized Catholic, confirmed, etc.  Based on his life, he was not ‘born-again’.

The “fullness” is being Born-Again, sealed by the Holy Spirit.  Being made JUSTIFIED by God, and having our legal position, our status in Christ, PROTECTED FOREVER = the Good News, that we are supposed to tell others, making other disciples for Him. —telling them the Good News, and the Holy Spirit brings the increase… one person plants seeds, the other waters, another harvests….

Our lives are works in progress, being Sanctified, day by day, until our death, where we will be “absent from the body, and present with the Lord.”  We are IN CHRIST now, NEW CREATIONS, and IN THE VINE - branches, that are sometimes pruned, always growing.  Sinners, under His Blood, saved by the one sacrifice made 2000 years ago, giving us access to the Father, now.  No mediators.  We have but one Advocate with the Father - and He is sympathetic, knowing what it is like to be human= Jesus.  I hope the incoming Lutherans will teach that.

Joe - Yes, the Bible unifies, when it is read in context.  It’s very easy to study, speak, with fellow Christians of all denominations.  We do all
believe in God, and we believe the Bible is His Word.  So there are no agnostics in our Bible study class.

We do not question to the point where we doubt the validity of what we’re reading.  Much of the Bible that was thought to be unprovable is now being proven with archeological digs.

For Agnostics that do not know what to believe, there are excellent books by Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel- in fact, you can tune into a radio program tonight at 9PM on the Internet, and hear Josh McDowell and his son speak as a guest on “Focus on the Family” - with Jim Daley as host.  The topic is why is the Bible accurate?  If you miss it, the program will be on their archives.

Lee Strobel was an investigative newspaper reporter, and he was atheist.  His wife became a Christian, and he was intent on proving Christianity false.  But what he found was that Chritianity is true.

Cradle and Twelve Oaks,
**
Nice to see you again.  I see you haven’t budged an inch…lol.
I still have all my “notes” from our last go ‘round.  Anytime you want to pick up where we left off, let me know.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did (‘and presumably said’) which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written,” (John Chap. 21 Verse 25). Okay, where will you go to get the rest of the story. Sorry, but I will not accept “sola scriptura” simply because that’s not what Jesus wanted. So don’t invite me to sup at your wobbly table. Jesus said, “Go out and teach whatsoever I have commanded.” So I’ll stick with Jesus’ infallible institution that he founded, the Holy Catholic Chruch. I’ll take infallibility and never fallibility.

FOR THOSE WHO ARE WRITING ABOUT COMMUNION. So how are Protestants more reverent in receiving communion when to them communion is just a piece of bread? In the Holy Catholic Church, the Holy Euoharist is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. To a Protestant, communion is simply a piece of bread. Incidentally, you need a valid priesthood in order to turn actual bread into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. God has come to us in different forms: As a burning bush, as tongues of fire, as a dove, as a baby, as a man, and now as the Holy Eucharist found in the Holy Catholic Church.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Three beautiful miracles have occurred from the Holy Eucharist through my intercession when Protestants were present. After one beautiful miracle, one Protestant said: “Philip, I’m a Catholic.” Probably other Protestants became Catholics later. I didn’t follow their story.

Cradle,
“We do all believe in God,”
I know you have extensive Bible knowledge. You should also know the Bible says the devils believe in God and tremble. In other words believing in God is not synonomous with being a christian and therefore will not save a person.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.” 1 Corinthians 8:4-7
“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which has knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols.  And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” 1 Cor. 8:9-13
A few questions to test your knowledge. Does the host become an idol? If so, should you be partaking? What is a true church? Are there certain requirements which must be met for a church to be a true church? Are there false churches in the world?

Cradle, a TRUE CHURCH must be founded by Jesus Christ, must be INFALLIBLE and INDEFECTABLE IN FAITH AND MORALS. IF IT DOESN’T HAVE THOSE MARKS, ADIOS. That’s why I say that “sola scriptura” isn’t the anwser. I’ll say once again, “sola scriptura” brings contradictions, and consequently divisions, and sub divisions, plenty of errors, a TOWER OF BABEL.

Phllip, I know your response is directed to Cradle Cath. But honestly, the ‘True Church’ has been nothing more than the ‘Tower of Babel’:
The Princes of the Church publicly contradicting each other so much that experienced Catholic journalist are made to look incompetent causing derision among the faithful; and we won’t go there as far as indefectable, but morals?
To be a teacher, we must first be a witness, and surely your not going to give me, anyway; the ‘we are all human’ or a ‘church of sinners’.
We have the right to expect all the qualities of a ‘True Church’, from those running it at the top, we at the lower spectrum hopefully, know where we stand before God in our ‘nakedness’; a God without fear or favour.
I hate to finish off by your ultimate quote: IF IT DOESN’T HAVE THOSE MARKS, ADIOS, but there it is anyway.

Here’s a question: If papal infallibility (however it’s defined) is so critical for the Church’s teaching authority, then why did it take nearly 2,000 years for it to be defined?
**
Because nobody asked.  Why did it take so long to say that Jesus was God?

Better yet, if the Sola Scriptura is true, why did it take 15 years for Martin Luther to say so?

WayneM- Thanks for pointing out the devil and the other fallen angels BELIEVE in God.  In Acts, when the FALSE disciples were casting out a demon, the demon said the equivelent of: “Jesus I know, and Peter, I know, but who are you?” & the possessed person sent the fellow running!
All the folks in my Bible study class, be we Catholics or Protestant, are FOLLOWERS of Jesus: born-again sinners, and sealed with the Holy Spirit.
We’re studying Romans right now, and I have Paul in my mind.  I love Paul.

You wrote: “A few questions to test your knowledge. Does the host become an idol? If so, should you be partaking? What is a true church? Are there certain requirements which must be met for a church to be a true church? Are there false churches in the world?”

Cradle’s reply-
No- the host is not an idol.  That question reminded me of a Jewish Cultural Street Fair where an Orthodox Jew got into an almost near altercation with a gentle person who is a Jew for Jesus.  The Orthodox Jew said to the other man, “YOU ARE NOT A JEW!!  YOU ARE WORSHIPPING AN IDOL!!!  YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE FAITH!!!” - and then a security guard came over, to protect the Jesus follower, that was just standing there, trying to reason with the high-strung Orthodox man (a rabbi, by the way).

It is my belief, Wayne, that if I do not have the Presence of the Holy Spirit living IN men, when I arrive at Mass for Sunday worship, even if I ate an entire chalice filled with consecrated hosts, and I drank and entire cup filled with the consecrated wine, I will not have anymore of Jesus in me, than when I arrived.  Rather, when I am born-again, and sealed by the Holy Spirit, declared Justifed, and seen as “Righteous” in the eyes of the Father, through nothing at all I did - it is then that I am “In the Body” of Christ, and a member of His Church.  Anyone that has 1) been DRAWN by the Holy Spirit and 2) MADE RIGHTEOUS by God through His grace and is 3) sealed by the Holy Spirit, is in the Church.  The Church is not a denomination.  It is a way of life - and I can recognize other members of His Church, based on their fruit.

Yes - there are false churches.  In fact, most cults have a bit of truth, and they even use the Bible, to prove their authority.  It’s the additions and subtractions from the WHOLE WORD that we have to be careful of.  Even Paul wrote that there will be wolves among God’s sheep, and the ONLY way to know good from bad is to Read the Bible - in context and in full.  Paul wrote (and Peter too, I think…) that there would be false teachers from AMONG THEM.  If that happened then, it will happen now- and it is happening.  “BY WHOSE AUTHORITY” do we teach?  I choose the Bible.  As for me and my house, we follow the Lord.

Cradle,
I am a little confused about your view of the host. On the one hand you said “even if I ate an entire chalice filled with consecrated hosts, and I drank and entire cup filled with the consecrated wine, I will not have anymore of Jesus in me, than when I arrived” You believe Christ dwells in believers as the Apostle Paul taught: “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redmption:” 1 Corinthians 1:30 But on the other hand Rome teaches that the host is changed into the physical body and blood of Christ and is physically consumed in the communion service. This seems to be based on their literal interpretation of John chap.6. Protestant bible-believers do not believe in this literal interpretation of John 6. Therefore, we can only conclude acceptance of Rome’s teaching results in idolatry since the host is worshipped as Jesus (God). Can you share your view on this? Secondly, since the Mass claims to be a re-offering or continuation of the sacrifice of Christ, is it not a denial of the once for all sacrifice of Christ as sufficient for atonement for all sin?

Joseph,
mk, Jesus proclaimed himself to be God in his own lifetime, at least according to the Gospels. See John 8: 58-59; the people were about to stone him for blasphemy. That’s a lot different than papal infallibility. I also find it hard to believe that nobody would ask that question, especially during the Reformation.
But that wasn’t your assertion.  You asked why it took so long for a pope to DECLARE that popes have papal infallibility.  You didn’t ask at what point it was known that they did.  It took centuries for a pope to DECLARE that Jesus was God.  Which has nothing to do with when we KNEW He was God.
And you didn’t answer the other question.  If Sola Scriptura was true from the beginning (which was physically impossible) then why did it take Luther 15 centuries to DECLARE it so?  You can’t have it both ways.  Either a thing can be true before it is declared, or it must be declared before it is true.

Wayne,
Secondly, since the Mass claims to be a re-offering or continuation of the sacrifice of Christ, is it not a denial of the once for all sacrifice of Christ as sufficient for atonement for all sin?
The Mass is neither a re offering nor a continuation.  It is a perpetual sacrifice, an ongoing sacrifice.  It never ended.  It is a memorial in the Jewish sense.  Meaning we transcend time and arrive at the crucifixion, entering into it.  Cradle will tell you that at that same street festival, a number of Jews confirmed that to them, “to remember” meant to re enter, not re do, not re offer, not re present, but to re enter.  To actually “be there”.
Cradle,
Are you honestly saying that the Eucharistic Miracle is up to us?  That WE hold the power, not God?  That unless WE do something, God is incapable of entering into us?  If I swallow a Tylenol, does it only work if I BELIEVE it will work?  Or does it work because of what it IS.  Do I have so much power that I can actually change what a thing is, simply by thinking about it?  By believing in it?  Hmmmmm…Doesn’t sound like the Eucharist I know and love…

WayneM- Keep in mind I’m just an average Cradle Catholic, with no theological teaching at all, and for years, I just accepted whatever came down the Vatican pike, well… because they said so. I figured they had seminary training, and I did not, and they knew better than me.  It was only when I read the Bible, that I began to say, “Hey, wait a minute.  How come we do this, and that?  How come they didn’t teach me THAT?” - Well, I began to protest, making me “sound Protestant.”

With that said, you asked me about John 6 and “what is the Host?” to me.
Cradle’s reply-
First, whenever I can take the Bible in its literal sense, I do so.  Jesus commanded His followers, “Do this in memory of me” and He said
“This is my Body - and this is my Blood.”  Take and eat….........

Why are we called to “remember”?  My explanation is like the Church of Ephesus in Revelation that LOST its first love, God.  I believe we are called upon to REMEMBER Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross, that it SATISFIED God the Father, serving as Propitiation for ALL sins, ONCE, and when Jesus said “It is finished” on the cross, and ascended into Heaven and sat down, the plan for salvation on Jesus’ part, as our HIGH PRIEST, was completed.  There are no more sacrifices taking place.  We remember and are thankful for the Free Gift Jesus gave to us= His Body and His Blood.

When I consume the CONSECRATED Host/Blood, I am declaring Jesus’ death on my behalf, REMEMBERING His sacrifice, and in THANKSGIVING, I worship and praise God, IN COMMUNION with other believers, joining in with the eternal worship that is going on in Heaven, even as we speak, as believers are promised ETERNAL LIFE with Him, “Absent from the body,  present with the Lord.”

I believe that in any Bible-believing Church (Catholic or non-Catholic) where Jesus one sacrifice is remembered and proclaimed, and bread and wine is set apart for the believing and thankful congregation, it is the Body and Blood of Jesus that is consumed.  Precisely HOW it happens is above my pay grade to know; I believe only God knows, for sure.  We are instructed to not forsake the gathering of the assembly, and we are told to “Do this…” in memory of Him, so I do.

One thing I know for sure, based on Scripture (error-free, infallible authority) is that the Holy Spirit and Jesus do NOT “obey” a priest who says magic words, causing the elements to be changed into His Presence.
There is no “re-offering” of the Sacrifice at Calvary. 

I was however, taught the foundation of the Catholic belief that at Mass, we are “entering into” the one Sacrifice that was made at Calvary, making it present for everyone today.  That “once for all” meant that it was still going on.  While I can understand the concept (it’s based on the Jewish feast of the Passover, where Jews today “make present” the one event that happened in time so long ago…) even the idea of it being “On-going” does not make sense to me as a New Testament Christian.

For the past year, I have given that much thought.  While my salvation does not depend on it - I want to worship God in Spirit and in TRUTH, as much as I can.  I know I am “sealed” with the Holy Spirit, and as such, “saved”= justified and declared righteous before God.

But I have learned that we can continue to be “filled” with the Holy Spirit- meaning our actions are controlled by Him, as opposed to our actions being controlled by our own flesh, or the world.  I desire that all my actions are God-honoring, and Spirit-led, including what I believe about Communion.

So, Wayne, I believe that I can receive Communion in any Bible-believing parish, and when I consume the elements (bread and wine, with the other believers present), it IS the Body and Blood of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and I believe that He is present, in the Word that was read, and in the other born-again people that are present, including the presider of the worship service, all equally.

I attend Catholic Masses each weekend, and what I wrote in the paragraph above this one is true of Catholic Masses too.  To my knowledge, and please correct me, if I’m wrong, I believe in the early Church, where there were Scripture readings (Old Testament) and the letters we have today in our New Testament canon, and there was bread consecrated and taken to the sick or those in prison, there was no specific liturgy.

So I do not believe there is any specific format for the worship of God-
“I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”  Only Jesus’ sacrifice that served as a one-time Propitiation, and that satisfied God, counts anyway. For it, I offer my worship and my thanks for a free gift that I could never have achieved for myself.

Cradle,
With all due respect, you have a lot of “I believes” in there.  As if you believing it makes it so.  It might be true and you might believe it also, but believing it, does not make it true.  Your post almost read like CradleCatholics Creed…you’re not starting your own church are you?  ;)

Philip,
“Cradle, a TRUE CHURCH must be founded by Jesus Christ, must be INFALLIBLE and INDEFECTABLE IN FAITH AND MORALS. IF IT DOESN’T HAVE THOSE MARKS, ADIOS.”
Of course the true church is founded on Jesus Christ. Nobody would disagree with that statement. There is no scriptural basis for claiming that a church is infallible. That is purely a man-made claim. God’s Word is infallible because it was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. That is why the claim that Scripture depends on the authority or interpretation of any church must be dismissed as arrogant and pompous. It places the creature above the Creator. God is and what He wrote does not depend on the approval or authority of any man or any church. That is why sola scriptura is a fact.

Cradle,
I believe in the early Church, where there were Scripture readings (Old Testament) and the letters we have today in our New Testament canon, and there was bread consecrated and taken to the sick or those in prison, there was no specific liturgy.
I know for a fact that you know this wasn’t true as we read the letters of the early Church Fathers together, and the Mass has remained virtually unchanged since then.  Now if you mean the first few years, I’ll give that to you, but the Church of Corinth, etc, probably had so few members there was no need for a liturgy.  10 people breaking bread do not need to FOLLOW tradition, they are the ones MAKING tradition.
**

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

**

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons… But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

**

And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; “and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; “and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

**

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge/noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

**
Justin Martyr…earliest writings on the liturgy of the Mass.  (100-165)

Popes all along knew that popes had the charism of infallibility, but it didn’t become a dogma until 1870 because of the many questions being raised. A “dogma” in the Holy Catholic Church is “a divine doctrine that has been raised to settle a dispute.” Only the successor of St. Peter could do that.

Cradle, I’m sorry you have very little faith in Jesus Christ. Why can’t you believe that Jesus Christ can keep His church infallible and indefectable? In Matthew, Chapter 16, Jesus said that the “gates of hell would never prevail” over His church. Are you aware that if Jesus’ church, the Magisterium of His Chruch, had taught just ONE ERROR that the gates of hell would have prevailed to an extent? I hope you understand that.

Here’s a challenge. Find just one contradiction in the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. You can’t! Start here. Buy the Universal Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church and see if you can find a contradiction. You can’t.

There is no scriptural basis for claiming that a church is infallible.
**
Wayne,
LOL, there is NO Scriptural basis for claiming that SCRIPTURE is infallible either! Let alone the only source of Revealed Truth.

MK - My “I believes” were because WayneM asked what I thought about the specific topics to which I responded.  What I wrote back to him was what I believe about each, and why I believe it.

Regarding your joke about starting a new church - no.  There is only ONE Body of Christ, Jesus is its Head, I am one very grateful member of it.

The reason I didn’t respond when you asked me: “Cradle, Are you honestly saying that the Eucharistic Miracle is up to us?  That WE hold the power, not God?”—is that this blog has been easy for me to keep up with.

While I thoroughly enjoyed “chatting” with you so many months ago- even with 50 posts entering my e-mail box with regularity, three times a day, for months - I think your MOST informative comment to everyone on that blog was when you simply wrote: “I like rules.” 

Your “I like rules” comment revealed everything about how you think. Understanding your viewpoint and what you believe is easy.  All one needs to do is check out what the Vatican rule is about it and voila, no need for any further thought or discussion with you.

I already know the rules….The difference between you and me is that when Vatican rules differ from the Bible - and it’s easy to know when they differ, because so many non-Catholics point them out to us - then I heartily disagree with our Vatican rules.  We’ve already had this discussion, repeatedly. I respect your choice - you like rules.  Thus, no need for further dialog with MK.  But, do be well & God bless you.
*****************************************************************

To Joseph D’Hippolito - papal infallibility is the equivilent of our parents saying, “Because I said so.”  It’s some new doctrine that even Peter did not claim to have.

Philip, you wrote: “Are you aware that if Jesus’ church, the Magisterium of His Chruch, had taught just ONE ERROR that the gates of hell would have prevailed to an extent? I hope you understand that.  Here’s a challenge. Find just one contradiction in the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.”

Cradle’s reply-
I’m just curious to know what you think of Vatican II?  Are you in favor of all that came down, during that council? I’ve heard some Catholics say the church made a sort of left turn, after Vatican II.  Your thoughts?

One contradiction between the Magesteriums:
Mandated celibacy.

Cradle,
**
As you wish, tho let’s be clear that you, not I, are the one that “couldn’t keep up”.  Perhaps the rules are just over your head?
I wonder, do you go to synagogues and mosques, masquerading as a Jew or Mulsim, and then go their blogs claiming to be one of them and blasting them for their beliefs?  I might “like rules” but it beats “making them us as I go along”.

One contradiction between the Magesteriums:
Mandated celibacy.
For that to be a contradiction, the bible would have to say that priests should not be celibate.  And the Catholic Church would have to forbid priests to marry.  Neither statement is true.  Therefore it is not a contradiction.

mk,
“The Mass is neither a re offering nor a continuation.  It is a perpetual sacrifice, an ongoing sacrifice.  It never ended.”
The sacrifice Christ made was done once never to be repeated. It is impossible for man or any church to have a part in or make it an ongoing sacrifice. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Hebrews 9:28
“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; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Hebrews ch10 vs11-13.
These verses and others teach Christ’s sacrifice was complete and atones for sin for all time for His people (christians and Old Testament saints). It is not something man has a part in.

While man has no part in making Christ’s sacrifice an ongoing sacrifice, what Christ did was of eternal value and effect. To put it another way, nothing man can do would contribute toward this sacrifice which is already completed.  Ref. Hebrews

Jesus prayed to the Father concerning His disciples. “I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.  They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.  Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.” John ch17 vs14-19.

Wayne,
The sacrifice Christ made was done once never to be repeated. It is impossible for man or any church to have a part in or make it an ongoing sacrifice.
This is true.
t is impossible for man or any church to have a part in or make it an ongoing sacrifice.
This is half true.  Man does not make it an ongoing sacrifice.  God does.
It is very possible for man within the church to have a part in that which God does.  Paul knew it.  The early Church fathers knew it.  The early christians knew it.  The only ones who seem to not get the concept, are the folks who came after the reformation.  Read the book of Hebrews.  It’s all there.  Then read the early Church Fathers.  It’s all there. 
**

While man has no part in making Christ’s sacrifice an ongoing sacrifice, what Christ did was of eternal value and effect. To put it another way, nothing man can do would contribute toward this sacrifice which is already completed.  Ref. Hebrews
I don’t recall saying that he could.  I said he re enters that which Christ has done. Of course it’s of eternal value. It’s perpetual. It can be accessed at any time.

Joseph,
15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.
If you were arguing that Scripture is important, or worthy of our attentions, then you’d have an argument.  Since, however you are claiming that scripture (which didn’t even exist at the time) is the ONLY source of Revealed Truth,  you have no argument.  Protestants seem to be big on putting the word “ONLY” into Scripture where it is convenient.  Scripture ONLY.  Faith ONLY.  I can rewrite Scripture too, to make it sound like it’s saying what I want it to say.  (By the way, your passages are proof that works are part of the deal).  But I don’t.  Because I don’t just say that I revere Scripture.  I actually do.  I don’t take it out of context, ignore inconvenient passages, add my own words, ignore it as a whole and only view it in soundbites, make it bigger than God or interpret it to fit my preconceived views.
**
Nevertheless, if God is the Ultimate Author and Source of Truth, then His inspiration of Scripture would reflect those characteristics, right?
Of course.  How does that prove that Scripture is the ONLY Revealed Truth?  I have never said that it wasn’t the inspired word of God.  What I said was, it is not the ONLY source of Revealed Truth.  We also have Sacred Tradition.

Joseph,
You didn’t answer the question. If papal infallibility was a well-known and accepted doctrine before 1870, why did the Church take so long to declare it formally?
I did answer it.  I said “Because no one asked.”
Then Philip elaborated:

Popes all along knew that popes had the charism of infallibility, but it didn’t become a dogma until 1870 because of the many questions being raised. A “dogma” in the Holy Catholic Church is “a divine doctrine that has been raised to settle a dispute.” Only the successor of St. Peter could do that.

**
Popes could not declare that Jesus was God when Jesus openly proclaimed Himself to be God, then that doesn’t say much for the state or the theological quality of the papacy before that declaration, does it?
If you are going to continue to put words in my mouth, this is gonna be a loooooooong conversation.  Please show me where I said the the Popes could not declare that Jesus was God.  What I said was, they didn’t declare Jesus was God until long after Jesus’ death for the same reasons they didn’t declare infallibility.  BECAUSE NO ONE HAD CHALLENGED IT UNTIL THEN.  Yes, the belief that Jesus was God was there from the beginning.  But it wasn’t until 325 (which in my world is CENTURIES) that it was defined.  The Pope has always been able to make infallible statements, from the moment that Jesus gave Peter the keys and said ““And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”.  NO ONE doubted.  Therefore there was no NEED to DECLARE it.  UNTIL IT WAS CHALLENGED.
**
The rest of your post is undecipherable.  I can’t tell which words are yours, which are someone elses, and you didn’t finish your last sentence. 
**

Jesus prayed to the Father concerning His disciples. “I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.  They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.  Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.” John ch17 vs14-19.
**
I AM the Truth.  In the beginning was the WORD.  So what, now you’re claiming that Jesus gave each of the apostles a copy of the King James????  When He says I gave them your WORD, are you implying He gave them all bibles?  Jesus WAS the WORD.  Jesus WAS the TRUTH.  There was no scripture to give them!  He gave them HIMSELF.  And He spoke.  And how were the words that He spoke passed on? ORALLY.  Scripture uses “WORD” two ways here.  1. as referring to Jesus, Himself and 2. As referring to the words that Jesus spoke.  The only thing is does NOT mean, is that He gave them bibles.

Picking up on Cradle Cath’s last paragraph, on the Contradictions of Magesteriums, celibacy is a ‘dicipline” that not all men can maintain, decent men some of them.
A wonderful Sister of Charity now deceased and paled into oblivion, as a young nun was aproached by a “Legendary” Archbishop, to expand the maternity wing of the hospital she had founded, to care for women in “situations” created by his clergy to preserve the priesthood.
Long after his death, the facility was still being utilized into the 1980’s.
Father’s who wished to take responsability (and not all did), could support them financially, give them their name, but refused Rescripts of Legitimation through a valid process to preserve the priesthood.
The other options apart from having the babies put up for adoption is to live in a spurious “brother sister” relationship, whilst continuing in ministry.
To me, that’s the contradiction.

mk,
During the apostolic age, Jesus and the apostles had and used the Old Testament which they often referred to. As you know Jesus also taught and much of what He said is recorded in the gospels. As well, the apostles taught and wrote epistles during the Apostolic age, which we have now in our New Testaments. We know from Scripture that what the apostles were teaching verbally was considered the word of God because Scripture tells us. “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.” 1 Thessalonians ch2vs13.  The tradition spoken of in 2 Thessalonians refers to the teachings received from the apostles; not some ongoing new revelations claimed after the apostolic age by popes or bishops. “and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (the apostles) 2 Thess. 3:6. However, there is no authority given in the New Testament for church clergy to add new revelations to Holy Scripture after the New Testament was completed and the apostolic age ended. The Bible is considered as Holy Scripture; nothing else.

Wayne,
As well, the apostles taught and wrote epistles during the Apostolic age, which we have now in our New Testaments. We know from Scripture that what the apostles were teaching verbally was considered the word of God because Scripture tells us.
So what Paul “said” isn’t valid as he was not one of the original 12?  And it is written where in Scripture that this “Oral” tradition stopped with the death of the last Apostle?  And is it not also said that everything that Jesus said was so vast that it could not fit into the pages of a book? 
**
We have Oral Tradition.  You said so yourself.  What the apostles SPOKE was sacred.  That Oral Tradition is still being passed down today.  We call it the Sacred Tradition.  I am not challenging the assertion that Scripture is Sacred or the unerring word of God.  I am not challenging the assertion that it is A source of God’s Revelation.  I AM challenging the assertion that it is the ONLY source.

<B>To me, that’s the contradiction. ?B>
No, that is a failure of men to live up to their freely given “VOWS”.  It is not a contradiction.

“Sola sciptura” is not some new invention started by Luther or during the Reformation in 1500 A.D. as some claim. Sola scriptura is the teaching of Holy Scripture. The words “sola scriptura” are not specifically used, but the teaching is there just as the teaching of the trinity is there without the word trinity. It is also the teaching of some of the Fathers of the early centuries who taught against introducing anything new that is not written in Scriptures. They also defended the right to private reading and interpretation of the Bible. St. Basil (329 A.D. - 379 A.D.) wrote “Without doubt it is a most manifest fall from faith, and a most certain sign of pride to introduce anything that is not written in the Scriptures, our blessed Saviour having said, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and the voice of strangers they will not hear; and to distract from Scripture, or to add anything to the faith that is not there, is most manifestly forbidden by the apostle, saying, “If it be but a man’s testament, no man addeth thereto.” “De Fide,” Garnier’s edition, Vol.II, p. 313.” St. Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) wrote also about the importance of the Word of Christ and expressed concern about the ignorance of Scriptures. -from Joseph Zacchello’s book “Secrets of Romanism”.

mk,
“So what Paul “said” isn’t valid as he was not one of the original 12?”
I never said that. Of course Paul was an apostle. I pointed out the verse in Thessalonians which said the tradition were truths which the apostles had taught. Only certain men appointed by God were apostles. That was a special office. To be an apostle one had to have been appointed and the proof was their ability to perform signs and wonders and various miracles. (2 Cor. 12:12 and Hebrews 2:4) Nobody after the apostolic age had those qualifications. Those who claim the same authority to give new revelations from God are false apostles.

Wayne,
Wow.  Talk about a contradiction.  Nothing may be added or subtracted from Sacred Scripture…except for Sola Scriptura and the Trinity.  Hmmmmm…Now don’t get your knickers in a twist…I’m not the one contesting that everything must be explicitly stated in Scripture, you are. The only thing you have shown with those passages is what has already been established.  That Scripture is Sacred, not to be messed with and Revealed Truth.  What you have not shown (and have actually contradicted) is that not ALL Sacred Truth is in Scripture.  Some of it is implicit, and some of it is derived from Oral Tradition.  How you can feel justified using Oral Tradition (quoting an early father) to prove that you can’t use Oral Tradition as a source of Revealed Truth is beyond me.  But let’s move on to the “Must not take anything away…”.  So you are comfortable with adding Sola Scriptura and the Trinity even tho they are only IMPLICSTLY alluded to in the bible, and are equally comfortable with taking away the Eucharist, Confession of sins, Baptism as a requirement for salvation, marriage as insoluble by man and the Papacy even though these are EXPLICITLY stated?  And you are okay with accepting the Early Fathers teaching on Scripture, but dismiss their teachings on The Bread of Life, the Priesthood, the Papacy and more?  Sounds to me like you are eating your cake.  Pick one and stick with it. The Trinity and Sola Scriptura are out, or the Eucharist and the Priesthood are in.  Scripture is the ONLY source of Revealed Truth, or the Early Church Fathers conserved the Oral Revealed Truths…

The Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity is traditionally the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Crucifixion of Jesus (c. 30-33) and the Great Commission in Jerusalem until the death of John the Apostle (c. 100) in Anatolia.

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age
**
Paul was NOT one of the Twelve.  And where in Scripture does it say that NO ONE else could pass on Sacred Truth?
**

  God added his testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power, and distribution of the gifts of the holy Spirit according to his will.

**
So you don’t believe that ALL of us receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?  That all of us are not capable of receiving the gifts of healing, and prophecy?  Teaching and speaking in tongues?  All of those disappeared with the Apostles?  The TWELVE apostles?  Inconsistency after inconsistency.
**

  To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
8
  To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
9
  to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit;
10
  to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues.
11
  But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.
12
  4 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.

Wayne,
Those who claim the same authority to give new revelations from God are false apostles.
And where are these people giving new revelations?  If the Oral Tradition is Tradition handed down from the Jesus, through the Apostles, to us today, where are you getting this “New revelations” stuff?

The Mass in the Holy Catholic Church is an unbloody reinactment of the original sacrifice performed when Jesus Christ died. Can God do this? Why not? God can do this. There is no contradiction. There is only one thing that God cannot do, and that is that He cannot contradict Himself. Why not? Because contradiction is against God’s Nature. Let me remind you that there are many contradiction in private interpretations of the New Testament.

Is the Catholic Mass the same sacrifice at Calvary? Yes. With God there is no such thing as TIME OR SPACE. Only God can do this through the church that He instituted, the Holy Catholic Church, Jesus’ church, which is infallible and indefectible in faith and morals. If anyone here doesn’t believe that the Catholic Church is the true Chruch, then which One is true? Remember, the true church MUST BE INFALLIBLE AND INDEFECTIBLE.

For those who brought up Adolph Hitler as being a Catholic: Yes, Hitler was a fallenaway, who became an atheist, and a murderer of many people. Were you trying to make the Holy Catholic Church look bad by pointing out the sins of Hitler? Shame on you if you were trying to do this. In what way did Hitler’s sins besmirch the church that Jesus founded? It didn’t. The Catholic Church continued in its course unerringly.

Apparently, the authors that pointed to Hitler’s sins, have never heard of Judas Iscariot. Bear in mind that Jusas Iscariot was not only an apostle, but a person who was appointed by Jesus Christ Himself. Judas Iscariot was a bad person, yes, and even worse than Adolph Hitler. Judas was a traitor who betrayed my Lord and Savior with a kiss. But did the Holy Catholic Church cease teaching infallibly and indefectibly? Of course not. Only in one way was Judas like Hitler; they both committed suicide. But Judas was different in another way. His sin was greater than Hitler’s when he participated, at least indirectly, in Jesus’ death.

Philip,
“But did the Holy Catholic Church cease teaching infallibly and indefectibly?”
Where in the Bible does it teach the RCC is infallible and indefectible? Incidentally I don’t even see the word indefectible in the dictionary. I think I already asked if you could give any proof of this doctrine and you never gave an answer. I think we are wasting our time and starting to become repetitious. Please excuse me as I need to take a break from this discussion with you as it is going nowhere. Thank you for your time.

mk,
All those signs and wonders (the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit) ended with the end of the apostolic age. We don’t see people performing those miracles since then. The charismatic movement claims to have them, but many Prot denominations do not believe that individual christians have those gifts today. We believe God answers prayer, but does not give those miraculous powers to individuals now. One passage we understand referring to the end of charismatic gifts is “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” 1 Corinthians 13:9, 10
“that which is perfect is come” is believed by some to refer to the completion of the New Testament Scriptures. Once that was completed, the charismatic gifts appear to have ceased.  Anyway, please excuse me as I don’t want to get into a prolonged debate which I don’t feel is productive. I will withdraw at this point from further debate with you unless I see some compelling reason to comment. I have found from experience these kinds of debates usually go nowhere. Thank you for your time.

Posted by Lynne Newington on Wednesday, Mar 30, 2011 6:39 AM “Picking up on Cradle Cath’s last paragraph, on the Contradictions of Magesteriums, celibacy is a ‘dicipline” that not all men can maintain, decent men some of them.”

Cradle’s reply- Wow, Lynne, I did not know about all that you wrote.  It’s sobering.  When I was a child, I’d hear things like that.  My mother would tell me, “It’s not true.  They just don’t like Catholics and they lie about us.” - Now we know the truth, many of those people were indeed telling us what was happening.  I can understand ignoring our history back then, as much was ignored and protected in every level of society.  But now?  It’s time for all of us to put our heads up, and take them out of the sand.  Thank you for posting that information.

WayneM- I’ve enjoyed reading your posts too.  I hope I answered your last question to me in a satisfactory fashion.  While I too, do not want to get into endless and pointless discussions with others, such as you had last night and this morning, I’d very much like to continue our dialog, and also with other forward-moving posters, such as with Lynne.

With Lutherans coming to the Catholic church, I find it helpful to have your non-Catholic input how Catholics can be welcoming to the newcombers, and also how to process potential thoughts of Lutherans not coming to the Catholic church, and that are affected by those that are.  One former Protestant saint turned Catholic wrote that reading the Church Fathers is to “cease to be Protestant’.  I agree.

But my experience is reading the Bible (in context & in full) is to cease to be denominational - Roman Catholic, et al - and it is to see oneself as merely IN the Body of Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit, and part of the Bride of Christ, with Him, Jesus, as the One Groom of us all.

With Jesus prayer having been for church UNITY, I like to reach out and find common ground, instead of majoring on small issues - and learning from other Church members that have the “fullness of the faith”-they’re sealed by the Holy Spirit, and show His fruit in their lives- it is so easy to speak with my brothers and sisters in Christ, be they Catholic, or non-Catholic, Protestant or non-denominational.  There is only One Church.  Thank you, WayneM, and Lynne too!

Wayne,
We don’t see people performing those miracles since then. The charismatic movement claims to have them, but many Prot denominations do not believe that individual Christians have those gifts today. We believe God answers prayer, but does not give those miraculous powers to individuals now.
**
And that right there is the biggest reason you should run, not walk, but run, from the Protestant Church.  For every protestant on here, you will find a different set of beliefs.  Obviously they cannot all be true.  Instead of creating your own reality, based on your subjective interpretations of Scripture, perhaps you should admit your lack of qualifications and turn to a Church with a teaching Authority.  Cradle aside (as simply showing up in a Catholic Church and harassing her members doesn’t make you a Catholic) every Catholic here (and everywhere) believes the same things.  If there is a discrepancy, there is a place to go to clear it up.
**
Some of you believe in the Trinity, some of you don’t.  Some of you believe in the necessity of baptism, others don’t.  Some of you believe that the Holy Spirit still works through us (which is IN Scripture by the way) and some of you don’t.  33 THOUSAND denominations, all stemming from the Catholic Church (They call in ONE, Holy and Apostolic for a reason) and you still want to stand there and tell me that you, Wayne, or you Cradle, have the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth!  Nonsense.  You can’t even agree among yourselves!  Why in the world, would I listen to you?
**
“that which is perfect is come” is believed by some
**
And what good is a Church where it is “BELIEVED BY SOME” of her members that such and such is true???  Good Heavens Man, there is an ENTIRE CHAPTER devoted to the Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit.  And it’s PAUL talking to people OTHER than the APOSTLES.  Do you just make stuff up?

Cradle,
I would be pleased to continue discussion with you as occasion arises. You seem to have an open mind and I have enjoyed discussion with you. Incidentally I am not Lutheran. I belong to a Reformed church.  I will re-examine some of your recent comments when I get a little time.

Just as the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefore worthy of belief, so is the Succesor of Peter, the Holder of the Keys of the Kingdom and infallible in faith and morals.  It saddens me that people are swayed by Cradles selective logic.  Cradle is not truly faithful to the Catholic faith.

I understand about the heresies concerning Christ in the Church’s early years but to wait 300-plus years for any Pope, considered Christ’s earthly vicar, to proclaim Christ’s divinity (especially when Christ Himself proclaimed it) strikes me as odd.
**
This is because you don’t understand the nature of an infallible statement.  These statements are made because there is a danger of heresy becoming the belief.  An infallible statement is made in reaction to something. 
**
Here is a list of the Infallible Statements made by Popes over the years.

  * “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
  * Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
  * Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
  * Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
  * Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
  * Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
  * Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

My grocery list is longer.

LOL, there is NO Scriptural basis for claiming that SCRIPTURE is infallible either!
**
I stand corrected.  I hadn’t realized that that is what I wrote.  I intended to write “There is no Scriptural basis for claiming that Scripture is the ONLY source of revealed Truth.  My apologies.

Thank you Mk for your explanations.  The miraculous happens every day.  Miracles have happened in my life and I’m sure they are in many others as well.  Oh yea of little faith. If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could say to this tree be uprooted… This is another example of believing some parts of the Bible and not others.  Our faith is a faith of miracles! The calling of the Apostles, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the healings and exorcisms ( which are still occuring today). God loves us so much He made us sharers in the divine nature through Jesus Christ. It is too much for us sometimes to really believe it. That is how we overcome sin. It is how we know Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.  God bless.

Pam,
It saddens me that people are swayed by Cradles selective logic.  Cradle is not truly faithful to the Catholic faith
**
I don’t have words to express how much I agree with you.  I’ve been pretty snarky on here, and I think it’s in reaction to our mutual friend.  Deceit is not from God.  Poor Wayne, Joseph, etc have felt my wrath without having done a thing to incur it.  I just can’t stand liars.  Disagree if you will, but be honest in your disagreements.  Posing as someone you are not…well, what can I say.  That is just the lowest.  Infiltrating the Church from within, misrepresenting her, lying about her, putting her in the worst possible light, all while playing innocent and claiming to be one of her members…Anyway, I say Amen to your comment.

Mk, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know,”  When Jesus said that to the Samaritan woman at the well, He had you in mind.  The only difference is that the woman at the well had humility.

THIS POST IS PERSON-SPECIFIC, PLEASE: TO PAM ONLY. 

To Pam: you wrote, ” Cradle is not truly faithful to the Catholic faith.”

Cradle’s reply-
You are 100% correct in that observation.  Ever since I picked up the Bible, and read it, I have had questions about the numerous ways the Vatican veered from New Testament truths over the years.  There are many other Catholics, like me, that chose to remain in the Catholic Church, even after having read the Bible, and having noticed the discrepancies.
But most just leave for Bible-teaching parishes.

I know a senior citizen whose whole family is no longer Catholic.  She’s a widow with 3 married sons.  She started reading the Bible when her sons were children.  One by one, her sons and their families have left for Bible-teaching churches, taking her lovely grandchildren with them.  Thanks to this grandmother, this whole extended family is Bible-literate.

But even she, like you, Pam, does not like it when I speak up about the problems in the church.  She prefers to just stay quiet, not talking about where our church has gone off the path from the Bible.  But NONE of her family is in the Catholic church anymore.

Something is wrong.  It’s great that Lutherans are coming to the Catholic church, but if Bible-literate Catholic families are pushed out, little by little, and only Catholic apologists, such as yourself, are left, I can’t see that as good. 

Herein lies THE BIGGEST problem as I see it: Have you noticed our Sunday Mass second readings are almost always from Paul’s writings, yet priests rarely, if ever, speak about the doctrine it contains?  An example: recently, Paul’s writings on “Justification” was read.  But in no parish around my area did priests teach what that is.  I have problems with that.  So I complain constantly.  I know it makes me sound like I’m not a good Catholic.  Are you alright with the huge gaps in teaching, Pam? 

Next point:
Pam, you wrote, ” Oh yea of little faith. If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could say to this tree be uprooted…”

Cradle’s reply-
I have faith in Jesus.  I have little faith in the Magesterium.  If our church leaders were like St. Peter & my pesonal favorite, Paul- who also told it like it was, and stood up to Peter, when he needed to, I’d put ALL my trust in them.  I wouldn’t have to question so much - with the exception that we are ORDERED to be like the Bereans, testing what we hear, lest we lose our first love: for God, and our faith turns into just a rules-based religion.

Alas, our church history shows us they just CAN’T be trusted.  When they teach doctrine in agreement with Scripture, terrific.  I applaud them.  But when they veer so far off track, enough where many fellow Christians have asked me and almost every other Catholic I know, “Are Catholics Christian?”, we just can’t ignore it.  It must be addressed.

Our manner of questioning need not be rude, uncharitable, or meant to be hurtful or alienate our Church leaders, priests included.  But we should care enough about our faith to question and “seek to understand”.  We’re called upon to GROW in our faith, and to UNDERSTAND it, not just to repeat rules & regulations, doctrines & dogmas that differ from the New Testament. 

Pam, you wrote, “God loves us so much He made us sharers in the divine nature through Jesus Christ. It is too much for us sometimes to really believe it. That is how we overcome sin. It is how we know Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.”

Cradle’s reply—
1) I am not a scholar so, I may be 100% wrong with this comment to your point, “God loves us so much He made us sharers in the divine nature through Jesus Christ.” OR I may have misunderstood what you meant….

With that said, I sincerely doubt any of us are “sharers in the divine nature” of God.  That almost sounds like a Mormon doctrine to me.  I am a sinner.  I was a sinner before I became born-again, and I am a sinner now.  The difference is now, I am forgiven.  I am under Christ’s Blood.
I have been Justified (a legal term, my status before the Father: NOT CONDEMNED, although I AM GUILTY.) When the Father sees me, He sees me as “righteous” even though it’s not through anything I did to deserve it, it’s 100% because of Jesus and His Gift to me = the Good News.

Pam wrote, “That is how we overcome sin.”

2) I’d love to be able to overcome sin.  Sometimes, I do.  But I am still a sinner - THAT is my nature.  It’s just by God’s grace, and the Holy Spirit’s help and leadership, that I do have an option NOT TO SIN.  But…sometimes, well, I fail.  Paul wrote he did the things he did NOT want to do - so I’m in good company.  I can (and do sometimes) grieve the Holy Spirit - by quenching His leading.  I don’t want to do that - but sometimes….I do.  I can’t surprise God.  He knows I am dust.

3) “This is how we know Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.”

Cradle’s reply- Pam, is it possible Catholics tend to over emphasize Jesus in the Eucharist, and DIMINISH the Presence of Jesus, in His Word?  St. Paul was tutored directly by the Holy Spirit, in the desert, and wrote 13 New Testament letters.  Yet, mostly what priests teach to us are the Gospels, and mostly the Eucharist is pushed to the point where it’s not as much a Thanksgiving for the redeemed, but rather, it’s like an end unto itself.  Why do you think priests avoid teaching Paul?

To: WayneM and Joseph-
Thank you so much for your kind words - and I say, “Likewise!”

Mk, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know,”  When Jesus said that to the Samaritan woman at the well, He had you in mind.  The only difference is that the woman at the well had humility.
**
The woman at the well had the Truth, as given to her by Our Lord, not just any old body that knew how to read.  It is humility to say that you do not know everything and need to trust those who are far more learned and wise.  It is arrogant to say that you are the sole source of Truth, simply because you can read the words on a page.
**
I admit that I have been less than gracious on here and I admit that it had nothing to do with you or Wayne or Joseph.  My Church is dear to me and I find myself getting emotional when it is being represented by imposters.  I am not referring to you.  I have no problem discussing the Faith in a reasonable, friendly manner.  My reaction was to a specific incidence in the past.  To all of you that have felt the brunt of my anger, I sincerely apologize.  I wasted a lot of time on what I believed was an honest discussion with a sincere believer, only to find out that I had been played like a bad fiddle and it left a bad taste in my mouth.  Running into that person here unexpectedly brought out the worst in me, I’m afraid.  Sincere and honest debate I can do, but underhanded deceit?  Not so much.

Cradle, please, you are hardly a Catholic, and if you really are I think you need to read some Catholic Bible commentary. Because ever since I picked up the Bible and started reading the Catholic commentary whole sections I had previously blown off started to make sense. I found the Bible to be very Catholic. :)

That being said, if you have no faith in the Magisterium then why do you believe in the Bible. Jesus didn’t hand the 12 Bibles. No, it was bishops of the Church who decided what books were good and true. The same bishops who believed in the Eucharist, grace giving baptism, the 7 Sacraments, and Church authority. If you are looking for a Church that looks and feels exactly like the one that existed in the first century, well, sorry, but you’ll never find it. But there is nothing wrong with that. The Church has grown into herself a lot since them. We have better understood, moved by the Holy Spirit, what Christ meant.

If you really are a Catholic, then read some Catholic authors. If you aren’t, well, as a former Protestant Bible scholar myself, I can tell you that for ever objection you have thrown out thus far there is a very adequate Catholic response.

Pax Christi!

Joseph D’Hippolito,
Would you be willing to consider that the devil has power to perform miracles too? Remember when Moses was dealing with Pharoah, he witnessed the power of the devil. “And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” Exodus ch7 vs10-12 I am not saying God would not perform miracles today. I think God is always performing miracles. But the age of people receiving the charismatic gifts seems to have ended with the apostolic age. For example, the so-called tongues spoken in the charismatic movement are not the tongues in the book of Acts ch2. In Acts ch2, the tongues were actual languages which could be understood by people. “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” Acts 2:8 The signs and wonders gifts were given to the apostles to authenticate the doctrine they were teaching was true and of God. “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders and mighty deeds.” 2 Corinthians 12:12
When miracles performed today appear to be authenticating false doctrine, it must be questioned as to whether such a miracle is of God. An extreme example might be a witch doctor or voodoo practitioner. One would not believe any supernatural power they were able to perform was of God. There is much false doctrine in the world and possible miracles associated with it needs to be considered with great caution.  Christians do no appear to have the same signs and wonders today that the apostles had. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew ch7 vs21-23.  It should be noted Jesus followed this statement with “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.” Matthew 7:24,25.  These verses say that miracles were performed or could be performed by people who did not know Christ. Even though they performed these miracles, and even in the name of the Lord, they were not God’s children. The miracles must have been by the power of the devil. The conclusion is we need to be very careful about the subject of signs and wonders performed by people. They may not always be of God.

Charles, you wrote: “The Church has grown into herself a lot since them.”
In your opinion, is it the same Church Jesus left in the care of Peter and the Apostles?  “Growing” in numbers, as happened in Acts is good.  But “morphing” into a new and improved version, is problematic.

You wrote: “We have better understood, moved by the Holy Spirit, what Christ meant.” —Cradle’s reply: How about what St. Paul meant, when he wrote his 13 New Testament letters?  Paul was taught DIRECTLY by the Holy Spirit & he wrote all those letters.  What, in your opinion, is different from what the Holy Spirit taught Paul & what the Holy Spirit moved others that came later to write?

Lastly, you wrote, “I can tell you that for ever objection you have thrown out thus far there is a very adequate Catholic response.”

Cradle’s reply-
You are a Bible scholar and I am not.  You were Protestant.  I have always been Roman Catholic.  So I have no Protestant background to use as a tool, as do you.  Will you please tell me the adequate Catholic responses to the objections I have thrown out?  Just in your own words.  No need to look up specifics.  I’d greatly appreciate it.  Thank you.

Cradle:  1.  The Catholic Church has actually been given a gift that you may not be aware of.  When the Mass was reorganized during one of the Councils, probably a Vatican I or II but I’m not sure,  the Mass readings were rearranged and grouped.  If you pay attention you will notice that the first reading, (and second if there is one), the psalm and the gospel all relate.  The Old testament reading (the first)  and the psalm find their New Testament fulfillment in the gospel.  The priest usually explains the Old Testament and psalm and how the New Testament reading, the Gospel, shows how Jesus enhanced or refined the Old Testament understanding.  It is really quite awesome and in some respects a miracle of grace.  Also, did you realize that a daily mass-goer hears the whole Bible (with perhaps a few minor passages left out) every three years!  So even if a Catholic never picked up a Bible and just went to daily Mass they read it in full over a three year period!  That is unique to our faith and so AWESOME!
2. That people walk away from the Church is a tragedy and that they do it without tracking down the holiest priest(some can read souls, hearing their sermons brings more love in the parish etc.) in their area and barraging him with questions first is sad. There are many average priests but there are many very holy priests and to see anyone walk away without finding out who the holy ones are and confronting them with their issues is tragic.  Instead of feeding her confusion, tell her the name of the holiest priest in your area and beg her to visit him.  Catholics come home!!  And visit him yourself.
3. Our Church history does just the opposite of what you say.  Our Church history shows the victory of the Holy Spirit and God over any human frailty.  It shows a liturgy that goes back to the early Church fathers and it has a line of succession dating back to Peter (who by the way is one of my favorites because he was all heart even though he wasn’t the cleverest and made his share of errors.)  Our saints are incredible witnesses of God’s love and miraculous ways and some are Doctors of the Church, teaching us things about Christ in a way we never truly grasped before, like Theresa of the Child Jesus and her “little way.”  The fact that scandals arise from time to time is upsetting.  And thinking that something as egregious as abuse of power for child molestation is going unpunished is torturous.  But when we step back in faith we know nothing is unseen by God and our prayers will be answered, but not on our terms, on God’s
4. Coincidentally, I was at a mission tonight and the priest talked about how the Mass brings about our “divinization”.  You see when we receive the sacraments we receive grace and when we have truly participated in those sacraments and are open to receiving those sacraments, God’s grace flows into us and hopefully out of us to others.  Receiving Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist, we receive Divinity with a capital D. Divine life is a life of grace and we receive that in all the sacraments if we are without grave sin and are open to it. You may be a sinner, but if you call on God’s grace you need not incur serious sin.  I will give an example of a grace:  You are faced with a temptation to talk about someone and you know it would be sinful because you had nothing charitable to say and perhaps weren’t even sure it was true. On any given day it might just come out of you anyway, but when you are in a state of grace and therefore living conscious of God and your higher calling you might stop and say a short prayer, “God help me. I am really tempted to speak badly of this person.”  Verbalizing the prayer will bring God’s help.  You will feel the strength to distract yourself or the phone will ring or the dog will bark or someone will come to the door and distract you.  Somehow if you truly wish it God will make it easier to overcome the temptation.
5. How can you possibly OVEREMPHASIZE the True Presence.  That’s an oxymoron.  Impossible.  If we truly understood who it was that waits for us in the tabernacle to visit, we would never leave the Church. 24 Hour Eucharistic Adoration is growing around here.  I hope it is in every parish some day. We were taught growing up to make the sign of the cross everytime we passed a Catholic Church in recognition that we were passing Our Lord, truly present.  Jesus present in the Word is a whole section of the Mass, so I don’t see how you feel His Word is slighted. I explained about the rotation of readings above.  If you don’t think Paul is read enough, he is.  The cycle is divided into years and some gospels have more prominent parts in certain years.
Finally, I am not an “apologist” though I wouldn’t mind being one.  I am a woman who had a mother who was raised in the Catholic faith and went to a Catholic school with wonderful nuns who taught her the Truth she handed on to me and my brothers and sisters. I have supplemented that with books and videos of saints and daily Mass where some great priests have taught me more. Parents are the first teachers of the faith. Relying on CCD to teach the faith is not enough.

Cradle, if you really want answers I will give you some suggested reading. However, use your common sense. How can the Bible go against the Catholic Church? Jesus promised his Church that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church, and every protestant church on the planet today can be traced to a man. In fact, nearly every religion in the world today can be traced to a founder of some sort. Catholicism/Orthodoxy goes straight to the Apostles and to Jesus Christ. Because of that, you should trust Jesus that your Church is infallible, and that the Holy Spirit is guiding it today.

That being said, go ahead and read Scott Hahn, Pope Benedict (probably one of the greatest scriptural theologians in the history of the Church, your Catechism, and get a good Study Bible. I am hardly infallible, so attempting to get the best answers from me is a dangerous proposition. I should say that I was a Bible Scholar in the same class that your typical Bible church pastor is today, in other words, we are not experts, we just read and went with our heart without consulting the early Church Fathers. In fact, read Jimmy Akin’s “The Father’s Know Best” if you want to see what the Saints of the first five centuries believe.

If you are looking for the truth, the put aside your own notions of the world and Catholicism and take a look at history, and study it. You will find that Christianity is the true successor to Judaism, and that Catholicism is the true form of Christianity as established by Jesus Christ. If you don’t come to that conclusion, then you will be nagged throughout your life trying to find what church has the best interpretation of the Bible as you see it. In the end, that means you are the final authority. I know I wouldn’t want to be. It’s not about polemics or who is the better scholar, it is about trusting in Jesus Christ, and if you do then you must trust his Church, and the only Church that can be traced to Jesus Christ is the Catholic (or perhaps our brothers in the Orthodox Church).

God Bless!

Charles, my dear brother in Christ, the Holy Spirit has indeed guided you to write so clearly and so convincingly. ” To those who believe no explanation is necessary, to those who do not, no explanation is possible!”

Someone pointed out to me years ago, what John 6:66 said and the irony of those numbers 666.

In a book I read written by Fr Robert DeGrandis on the Eucharist, there was a incident recorded about a former member of a satanic cult who later converted to Catholicism.Whilst giving a talk on the Eucharist at a seminar, related, that when in the cult, she was asked specifically to go to the Catholic church and destroy the tabernacles. No instructions to enter the portals of the places of worship of any other denomination! Now.. why is that? You and I know that. So we will continue to pray for the grace of conversion for those who have all sorts of reasons, even misquoting Holy Scripture, why they do not believe in the Eucharist, as the Real Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. May the power of the Holy Spirit enlighten their minds so that they may know the truth and the truth will set them free. I know that without the Bread of Life, I will not be able to live God’s Word. I am deeply aware of my weaknesses and that it is He who sustains me and gives me life. My daily sustenance of feeding on His Body and Blood is the source of summit of Christian life. May every knee bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord really and truly present in the Holy Eucharist. God bless you all.

For the person who is having a problem with the word “indefectible.” So you can’t find it in the dictionary? Does that mean that the word “indefectible” is non-existent? Are you using an English dictionary? Sir, “indefectible” is a valid English word. Yes, it’s in the dictionary that I use. Maybe you should use a better dictionary.

I have been writing here to teach and to enlighten because I could see, from the beginning, that some of you are VERY, VERY POOR IN LOGIC. One author writes that “infallibility” isn’t in the Bible and insinuated that since “infallibility” isn’t in the Bible, “then the Holy Catholic Church isn’t infallible.” Is that a profound observation on the part of this author? Well, not really.

Become very humble and “listen” to what others are saying. Let’s begin here: Is “trinity” in the Bible? No, not the word itself. However, The “Father,” the “Son” and the “Holy Spirit” are in the Bible. So, the Holy Catholic Church decided to give this “Trio” a name that would include these three Divine Persons. The Holy Catholic Church decided on “The Holy Trinity.” Now, isn’t that clever? So indirectly “trinity” is in the Bible, but NOT DIRECTLY. Now, do you understand?

One “clever” author decided that since “infallible” isn’t in the Bible, then presumably “infalliblity” isn’t in the Holy Catholic Church. Now, isn’t this author profound? Gosh, Gee, such profundity! Okay, become as a little child and “listen” and learn: It’s true that the word “infallible” isn’t in the Bible. However, implicitly the Holy Bible is REPLETE with “infallibility.” For example, each time that Jesus spoke, He spoke “infallibly.” Jesus surely wasn’t speaking fallibly was He? So far can you understand? When Jesus founded His church, the Holy Catholic Church, he gave it the charism of “infallibility.” How else could Jesus’ church instruct the people to speak the truth and only the truth taken from its magisterium? WHEN THERE IS ONLY TRUTH THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? The Holy Catholic Church was given this charism of “infallibility” when Jesus entrusted the “keys to the Kingdom Of Heaven” to Petrus in Latin, Peter in English, Kephas in Aramaic. Jesus said, “thou art Peter, upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Use your head. Think, think, think. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not overpower His church. So what does this mean if Hades would not overpower His church? It means that His church would have to be infallible and indefectible. Would not just one error overpower Jesus’ church at least to an extent? Of course it would! But not if His church is “infallible” and “indefectible.” So is the word “infallible” in Holy Writ? No, not the word itself. However, the word “infallible” is in the Bible implicitly. Now, do you understand?

If you don’t understand, it’s because you are sorely lacking in logic. I have to follow correct logic. What you should do is become very humble as a little child, and jettison your pride. May God bless you.

Philip,
You are presuming many things which are false. I checked two Oxford English dictionaries and the word indefectible is not in them. Instead of going into a long personal criticism simply because I said I couldn’t find the word indefectible and disagreed with the doctrine of infallibility of the church, why not just give the definition. Secondly I believe I asked where the doctrine of infallibility of the church is taught in the Bible. You reply with various disparaging personal remarks and insults. I don’t believe your interpretation of the verse saying the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I agree the gates of hell will not prevail against the true church. That does not mean or imply that the true church is infallible. You are taking something from the verse which it does not say. On earth the true church whereever that may be, it still made up of fallible, sinful people and will not be a perfect church while it is on earth.  In any case, please excuse me from this conversation with you as I don’t see any value in reading your disparaging and insulting remarks.

Joseph,
mk, regarding miracles and Satan:

3. If miracles found in to Marian apparitions (such as the sun’s movement at Fatima) can be attributed to God, why can’t those outside of Catholicism? God is neither Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox nor Jewish. He is God. Period.
**
Is there a specific reason that you are asking me these questions?  They seem so random.  I’m not sure what you are really asking.  I can’t tell if think God would not want Muslims to convert, if He would…if you think I don’t think He would…if you think I said something that makes you think I think He would…the second question makes no sense to me whatsoever, and the third?  Where did I ever say anything at all about miracles let alone that they only happen within the context of the Catholic Church?  I’m so confused!
**
Again, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have, minus the snarky remarks, but I have to understand what you’re asking first…

Dear WayneM. “indefectible”—1. not defective; not liable to defect or failure. 2. faultless; not liable to fault or imperfection.

The dictionary that I use is huge. Probably has more than one million entres. May God Bless you. Philip

To Joseph D’Hippolito, in answer to your problem: Why not buy the universal catechism of the Holy Catholic Church? Also, attend seminars when some groups have lessons on the Catholic Church.  May God bless you. Philip

To mk:1. “Why would Satan want Muslims to convert and embrace Christ”? Beware. How do you know that this is true? Personally, I don’t believe the statement.
2. “How can people who cast out Satan and provide healing in Jesus’ name be working for Satan”? I’ve never heard any such thing. Personally I doubt the statement. If they can do that, they are not working for Satan. Satan never works against himself.
3. “If miracles found in Marian apparitions (such as the sun’s movement at Fatima) can be attributed to God, why can’t those outside of Catholicm? God is neither Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox nor Jewish. He is God. Period.” 

Friend, God performs more miracles inside His church and not so many outside His church. More miracles occur in the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church is the true church, God’s church. God chooses to do this to draw others to His true church. Why should God draw people to a heretical church? God doesn’t want to do that.

Here is something strange: Have you ever heard of the stigmata? The stigmata is the five wounds of Jesus. Did you know that only Catholics receive the stigmata? Why do you suppose? Again, this is a way that God draws non Catholics to the true church, the Holy Catholic Church. Myself, I have witnessed many, many miracles. Why do you suppose? I can guess why, but it might not be valid.

I led an army in Central America not so many years ago. Angels appeared; the Blessed Mother appeared; Satan appeared; many, many more miracles. Believe it or not. (Non Catholics also see some miracles, but invariably they become Catholic because the miracles are connected to the Catholic Church.) One very big miracle is still there, in Central America, through my intercession. But I will not elaborate. Bye and God bless. Believe it or not. I never ask anyone to believe this or that. Believe it or not.

Oh, yes, God is Catholic because God is Universal. Catholic means universal. God is One. God is Truth, so He would belong to His church, the True Holy Catholic Church. God cannot contradict Himself.

WayneM, I simply can’t help you. I don’t know if you are playing a game, or if you are simply dense. I have a suggestion. Why not take what I wrote to a philosopher, perhaps a priest, or teacher, and see if he thinks whether or not I make sense. Thank you, and God bless.

I can see that your logic is very poor.

Philip,
Thank you for defining indefectible. I honestly could not find the meaning in two Oxford dictionaries. As far as “playing a game”, no. I do not play games with spiritual matters which are of vital importance. I try to be honest and sincere and avoid sarcasm and personal attacks. I hope you will reflect on some of your personal attacks such as accusing me of being dense or having poor logic. You also used capitals when you said “DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?”  Capitals are a form of keyboard shouting which is also taboo in discussion.  You seem to be talking down to me as if you have superior knowledge. This kind of approach to people is surely not christian in character. You also said “If you don’t understand, it’s because you are sorely lacking in logic.” Simply because someone does not agree with your point of view, you choose to speak in a disparaging tone and question other’s intelligence. Those kinds of comments will do nothing to help your point of view. Surely you can do better.  Those kind of remarks might seem reasonable to you but really have no place in religious discussion if you ever hope to have anybody take you seriously. I will pray for you. Regards,

Joseph,
You must have me mixed up with someone else.  I never made those statements and never would.

WayneM - It sometimes seems funny to me when we get told off brutally, then the comment ends with “God bless you”.  I like your measured tone, and your ending of “I’ll pray for you” much better.  I often use caps too - I know I shouldn’t.  While my intent is only for emphasis, most people would likely interpret it as shouting.  You are correct, Wayne. I’m glad you mentioned that.  I’m enjoying your posts!

I’m grateful to Joseph H. too! Actually, I don’t believe in the Marian apparitions on a grand scale - the reason, Joseph, is that in most if not all of the cases, the “messages” say she asks for churches to be built to herself, in her honor.  That does not sound to me as if it comes from God.
Now - that’s just my own opinion.  When I am in Heaven, I may have to eat my words.  But what I’ve heard of the “messages” just doesn’t square with what I read in the Bible.

Charles - thank you for your taking the time to make suggestions to me too.  And Pam - I’ve heard we hear the whole Bible in 3 years, but I am positive it’s false.  A Jesuit priest did a study of that recently, finding only 3% of the Old Testament is read during a 3 year period on Sundays, and only 13% of the OT, if you go to daily Mass.

Further, much of it is omitted, in brackets - ONLY ONE parish in our area even read Paul’s writing about wives being submissive to their husbands, when that was the reading several months ago.  One priest I like (and more importantly, with all my speaking out, he still likes me!) not only read that whole reading, but he preached on it too - telling all of us to go to Ephesians Chapter 5 to connect the dots about what Paul meant.  It was terrific.

I pray that with the Lutherans coming in, we’ll have better quality preaching, more of it, and in context.  Seven minute sermonettes produce, what I think are, infantile Christianettes.  We need to know what we believe, in order to be disciples to others.  Thanks to all -

On a lighter note and a little history;  The “Infallibility” of the church extends far beyond the raising to sainthood from the grave.
Pope Stephen for instance, in the 8th century exhumed the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus and posthumously placed him on trial before the church’s Ecclastical Court. The rotting corpse was taken out of the tomb, dressed in vestments, propped up in a chair, with a deacon standig behind him speaking on his behalf. Being found guilty of course, on charges of canonical violations and perjury, all his acts and ordinations were proclaimed null and void, there was also a little political agenda behind the scenes as well.
His body was then mutilated, with the three finger held up to bless the faithful with, cut off paraded through the streets of Rome, and what remained of his body tossed into the Tiber.
Man that sure is Infallibility.

Cradle, Several pastors have mentioned the 3 years so I doubt your source and it is true for people who go to mass every day,not just Sundays.  Priests don’t choose the daily readings so your fear of Paul not being read is just silly.  I go to daily mass and hear Paul read often.

Joseph D’
I was the one who made a posting to you on Mar.30 at 8:58PM.
Regards

Lynne Newington,
“Pope Stephen for instance, in the 8th century exhumed the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus and posthumously placed him on trial before the church’s Ecclastical Court.”
I think I read about that in Peter De Rosa’s book called Vicars of Christ - The Dark Side of the Papacy. Written by a former Jesuit priest, it is an informative, myth-shattering book which shows their all too-human frailties and human fallibility over the last two millenia. Anyone interested in world affairs should enjoy reading this book. Philip Caraman, S.J. in Literary Review called it a “binful of garbage”.  Stewart Lamont of the Glasgow Herald said it is “colourful and compulsive reading..” Gordon Thomas, author of Pontiff and the Trial said “This is a very rare book - The perfect balance between impeccable research presented as compulsive reading”.

Wayne,
You and others here seem to have a serious misconception of what infallibility means.  Did you see my comment that listed the handful of infallible statements made by the Popes in the last 20 centuries?  The Pope is a man, just a man.  Yet a man with a great deal of responsibility.  The Holy Spirit works “THROUGH” him when he is making decisions based on Faith and Morals.  Doctrine.  But he has no magical powers, no safeguards against sin, no guarantee of sainthood.  It is entirely possible that one more Popes is never going to see heaven.  They are just as capable of falling as the rest of us.  We do not think they are God, we do not think they are all knowing or seeing and we certainly don’t think that every word that comes out of their mouths are infallible.  If you have a problem with the authority of the Pope, so be it, but at least know what it is that you have a problem with, because I doubt that it is his infallibility.

Wayne and Joseph,
Joseph D’
I was the one who made a posting to you on Mar.30 at 8:58PM.
Regards
Thank you for clearing that up.  I thought I was losing my mind!  Thought that maybe in the throes of my anger I had said truly insane things.  I’m still not sure what those questions meant, but I’m glad know that someone does.  ;)

Philip,
If I had to guess, I’d say that English is your second language and that some of the phrases you used came across differently than you meant them. I really think it was miscommunication and not arrogance on your part.  Don’t let it get to you.  You did a good job of getting your point across.

And for the record Philip, I put “indefectible” into google?  And came up with 313,000 hits.  Good word.  I’ll have to remember it!

Joseph,
Too often, as seen on this thread, Catholics reduce faith to arcane theology
Arcane?  Really?  Hmmmm…I never thought about it.  Anything you want to know is in the Catechism.  And there are websites and books…I agree it’s deep, and there are tons of areas where you could study for years and never make a dent…Christology, Mariology, Doctrine, Philosophy, Apologetics, History, Scripture, the saints, Theology…but it’s no secret.  It’s all there, out in the open.  You can understand it on the simplest level or study it for a lifetime.  The basic Truths could be understood in an afternoon, but you could go as deep as you want.  I once joked, during a particularly deep conversation, that I wished I had scuba gear. 
**
I have been accused of “liking rules” and it’s true.  I make no apologies for it.  You can’t even play baseball without rules.  I can’t imagine that Our Lord would have left us with nothing…no leader, no play book, no map.  To be united, you all have to be on the same page.  I find that with the protestant denominations (The Catholic Church is not a denomination btw) that there are no rules…whatever you feel like believing is fine as long as you can pull a scripture passage out of context to back up your claim.  But to me that is a misuse of the very thing that you guys claim to honor.  Truth is not fickle.  There is no way God would have said, there it is.  Now it’s every man for Himself.  All you gotta do is like my son as much as I do.  If you love Him, you’ll “do whatever He says” and his mouthpiece is the Church…the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The bottom line is that you too, if you believe that Jesus was God and died for your sins, are a Catholic.  You are not in full communion with Mother Church, but you are still a Catholic.

Gosh mk, I’d be interested if our God would really allow a priest of his Mouthpiece, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, to absolve the sin of his brother priest in the confessional for any crime committed against innocent children at least, before advising him to present himself to the authorities, or at he minimum, own up to what he had done.
At the moment, the mouthpiece of The Mouthpiece continues to claim diplomatic immunity in many instances, which to my way of thinking, is blasphemous.
But that is my non-catholic upbringing that allows me to sleep well a night, Praise the Lord.

Gosh mk, I’d be interested if our God would really allow a priest of his Mouthpiece, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, to absolve the sin of his brother priest in the confessional for any crime committed against innocent children at least, before advising him to present himself to the authorities, or at he minimum, own up to what he had done.
Well, Lynne, given the fact that God is the one that set up the system, I would say that yes, a fellow priest could most definitely absolve another priest of that crime or any other.  Don’t you believe that God can forgive any sin?  Or is there a limit?  Aren’t you the one guys the ones that believe “once save always saved?”  Are you saying this is only true if you are not a Catholic Priest?  Would God forgive a police officer that sold drugs under the table?  A psychiatrist that had sex with his patients?  A protestant televangelist who spent all the money that his followers sent to him in good faith on cars, houses, vacations… and cheated on his wife?
**
If the priest was truly repentant, I don’t see how he could not be absolved of his sins.  It’s hard to tell where your contention lies…with the fact that God gave priests the power to absolve sins or with the fact that priests are men and have flaws like everyone else. 
**
I suppose the problem lies in a misunderstanding of confession much like your misunderstanding of infallibility.  The priest does not “forgive” anything.  God does.  The priest simply gives absolution.  There is a difference.
**
I would hope that a priest would be more understanding with someone who admitted their mistake, apologized and asked forgiveness than you are.  I see that my own apology did nothing to change your mind, given the unchristian tone in you comment.  But perhaps the attitude was not directed at me as much as your hatred of that which you don’t understand?  No matter.  If sleeping well is your goal, then it would make sense that denial be your friend.  To each his own.

mk, for the record, I know five languages, speak four of them, and can get along in others. Am I proud of that? What shouldn’t I be? I’m glad that God gave me that capacity. I give God credit for all good things. God bless.

I’m glad you learned a new word.

Incidentally, I’m never marred in any way, shape or form what people say to me in print or to my face. I’ve had tougher times, like real war with real bullets.

For the writers who don’t believe that Jesus founded an infallible and indefectible institution, what are you searching for? Another way to say it: If you don’t believe that the church that Jesus founded is infallible, what are you seeking? It befuddles me.

For the writers who reject infallibility, why do you write as if you were bestowed with infallibility? That, too, befuddles me.

If you belong to a non-Catholic Church, why do you go there if you know that your church is fallible? That, too, befuddles me.

Do you believe that the church that Jesus founded now errs? If so, why can’t you have enough faith in Jesus that He protected His church from erring? That, too, befuddles me.

For the person who excoriated me, and then ended your letter by writing that I should end it with “I will pray for you,” instead of writing “May God bless you:” Do you see what I mean when I write that some of you are lacking in logic? When I write “May God bless you,” I am PRAYING for you. I really beseech God at that moment to enlighten you. I’M PRAYING FOR YOU! May God bless you.

MK said “I find that with the protestant denominations (The Catholic Church is not a denomination btw) that there are no rules…whatever you feel like believing is fine as long as you can pull a scripture passage out of context to back up your claim.”
This is a common misconception among Roman Catholics. The Reformed church denomination that I belong to subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, that is, The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), The Belgic Confession (1561), and the Canons of Dort (1618-1619). They also subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. Other Presbyterian (and Reformed) churches subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).
These confessions may be read at:
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/trf/index.html
The Reformed church to which I belong also subscribes to The Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Definition of Chalcedon.
These confessions and creeds are considered as supplementary to the Bible. The Bible is the final authority because it is inspired by God the Holy Spirit. Confessions are man-made are therefore not infallible. They are an aid in studying the Bible. The Bible makes provision for ministers (presbyters), elders, deacons, and bishops if necessary. Other denominations or independent churches have their confessions as well. People in these church offices are taught by Scripture that they are to be the servants of men and not to lord it over them. Some local churches are more autonomous than others and own their own church property, determine who will be appointed as the next minister, and control the budget for everything. They exercise corrective discipline with the church members if required (rarely) according to biblical principles and doctrine. This might involve suspension from the Lord’s Supper or excommunication until the situation is rectified. A small committee of elders (elected for a three year term), which includes the minister (not elected), comprise the Consistory who normally make the spiritual or preaching decisions and discipline if necessary. It is not a free-for-all as some might believe. Jesus is the only head of the church and His Word is the final authority.

Wayne,
On these concepts of religiosity, while they do express a rationale to faith they are but the opinions of the “divines” as they saw themselves.
Catholicism, as on these findings with their own concepts of their faith would not necessarily read nor know of them in their, as why should they?

Another posy stated that in these meeting that a citation could be culled from their Bible and voila an instant “Amen,” regardless of the setting of that text. Catholicism employs the Magisterial direction of the Papacy. I would hate that body of men to tell me how to build a home, but they may come to me to build a home, conversely with all there is to be gleaned from the Bible the consistency to Catholicism is the purview of the Papacy and the Magesterium, to date we have resisted the ad hominy of recitation of Biblical text in Church, is in essence we build the product and the Magesterium tends to the understanding of the Bible and our liturgy.

It has worked for a number of years before the days of enlightenment, the latter would discount the findings of the Church and because of innate curiosity the “what if” has been applied to the Bible and the Greek, Aramaic and Latin versions interpreted to the needs of their contemporary needs. Life and death are more important than that which deviation to text allows. The meaning of scriptures need the basis for all to know the greatness of the Creator, God, His son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit each aspect in Catholicism lends credence to beliefs. The differences which we have are not that extreme, but the changes in values we are challenged with need the consistent thought and understanding of the Bible.

Sic Transit Gloria

Pam - Jesuit priest, Fr. Felix Just, compiled statistics on the Mass recently BECAUSE he heard it said the whole Bible was read over a 3 year period.  His research shows over a three-year cycle of Sunday Masses 3.7% of the Old Testament (plus Psalms) and 40.8% of the New Testament is read. If you add weekday Masses you’ll hear 13.5% of the Old Testament (plus Psalms) and 71.5% of the New Testament.  The Old Testament is sorely lacking in both instances.  It is in the OT that Christians come to know the character of God best.  While Paul is *read*, Paul is not taught in any parish I know of.  If Paul were being taught, we Catholics would have concepts such as taught in Romans down pat.  Christianity 101-
“Justification”.  There is no justification in the Catholic church.  Paul, the only apostle taught by the Holy Spirit Himself, is omitted.

Philip:
“indefectible”—1. not defective; not liable to defect or failure. 2. faultless; not liable to fault or imperfection. = thank you for that new word.

Cradle’s reply-
I’d not heard of that word before either.  Thanks to you, I now I have another way to describe the Bible.  Sacred Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God, error-free, infallible and indefectible.  Only the Bible is error-free, not capable of error.

To Lynne Newington:
Your account of Pope Stephen in the 8th century that exhumed the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus and posthumously placed him on trial before the church’s Ecclastical Court, was hilarious.  What were the REAL Christians thinking at that time!!  Only a group of men-only, not Holy-Spirit filled could come up with that idea, and then do it.  The truth about church history being stranger than fiction.

WayneM-
Your church sounds wonderful.  Thank you for the link to the confessions at http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/trf/index.html
I have had issues with unsound teaching in my diocese.  When I complain even to the bishop, I get nowhere.  Believe it or not, the New Age drivel of Neil Douglas Klotz (a Sunni Muslim son of a Jewish Father & Christian mother, if memory serves) is being taught here as what Jesus really said in Aramaic.

A local nun calls it “A Fresh New Look at the Beatitudes” - instead of “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, Klotz - through this nun - says that Jesus REALLY said, “Happy and aligned are they that are one with the kingship and the queenship of the Cosmos” - or words to that affect.

If only I had a place to go such as you described, “A small committee of elders (elected for a three year term), which includes the minister (not elected), comprise the Consistory who normally make the spiritual or preaching decisions and discipline if necessary.”

Our bishop couldn’t care less - and the only thing he can lead is the way to the buffet table.  As long as the ADA funds keep pouring in, he’s happy.  Thank you for sharing with us, how your Christian church does it.
It sounds like the way a church SHOULD be run, avoiding error.

Lynne and Mk, A priest hearing a confession is not obligated to give absolution.  He can make it conditional, for instance, for instance on a molester reporting himself to the police. Lynne your posts sound very bitter.

Cradle, You are misunderstanding Paul’s description of justification. It isn’t saying “I believe.”  It is saying I BELIEVE with the faith at least as great as that mustard seed. A faith that expects the miraculous. Paul emphasizes it is faith that gives grace and the grace coming from the deep faith that helps us overcome sin.

Pam- Everyone is able to be forgiven at any time.  The problem, as I see it, is that most priests and the bishops that protect them, are not really sorry for the problems they have caused.  True repentance is like what David wrote in Psalm 51.  What’s in the news (or even reported by the dioceses themselves) is more like, “We’re sorry.  Can this just go away now?” That’s not repentance.  A lot of folks are suffering out there, in the world, and as a result of poor leadership.  Lynne’s posts are from someone that’s just been apprised of what’s going on - and I’m that way too, though I do not know Lynne.  But I’ve been in the loop, for 10 years, and have spoken up for healthy, God-honoring, and Bible-based reform.  I hope the Lutheran influence can help our Roman church.

Pam,look up Brokenrites, and see what the church has done in Australia, a young and small country in the scheme of things.
If that is too unpalatable for you, try Chrisian Order, a magazine devoted to Catholic Social Teaching.
Margaret Joughin,  a Melbourne housewife, a mother, and devoted Catholic with a B Phil. (Hons), wrote an excellent article; Broken Vows: Hypocricy: and Denial.
Michael McGrade has done the same.
Nothing to do with bitterness Pam, only expectations that those who lead us on the track to Heaven practice what the Gospels teach us.
In the 21st century, we have the right to call into account those who don’t.
We’re judged by the company we keep.

Cradle and Lynne,  No one is arguing that the Church hasn’t covered up sins that should have been stopped dead in their tracks.  It is hard especially for mothers, I think, to fathom what a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope could be thinking that would justify subjecting children to a pedophile or young girls to sexual abuse.  There have been alot of explanations given and none of them are really satisfactory to a parent. Certainly there are moments when it feels like Satan has definitely entered the temple, but God sees it all.  He says worry is useless, prayer is what is needed.  So let’s listen.  If we just do what we think is right we might just end up fighting God.  Where two or three are gathered… He will answer our prayer.

Cradle,  You don’t understand the gifts you have in the sacraments. “Anyone can be forgiven at any time.”  Anyone can ASK forgiveness at anytime, but through the absolution of the priest, you Know you are forgiven.  It is a lack of humility to avoid the sacraments instituted by Christ, especially since you call yourself Catholic.  Christ is standing there with that priest and it is He Himself who absolves you in confession, so no matter how much you distrust or dislike a priest, he is a gift to you and you would do well to find a holy priest and work through some issues with him.

Pam - you provided a kind response.  Thank you.  We also need to continue to 1) Be aware - so thanks to Lynne for the Brokenrites info about which I was not aware and 2) We need to speak up.  Prayer is a given.  But we must speak up too.

Joan of Arc was betrayed and killed by the institutional church, and many other Catholics, that were later declared saints, were treated most badly, by fellow Catholics!  Our Sunday Visitor had an article about 4 or 5 other saints (including Joan) and it was pathetic, how they were treated.

I tuned into Catholic radio earlier this week, and learned that the founder of the Jesuits (I think it was Ignatious Loyola) was actually imprisioned by the Benedictines, because they felt he was stepping on their territory.

As for being opposed to what a pope decrees - I may be corrected, if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember even Mother Teresa of Calcuta disobeyed the pope of the day, because the authorities did not want her to do the work she wanted to do.  She did it anyway, ‘obeying’ the prompting of the Holy Spirit, not men.

Lastly, it’s not just children that are affected by clergy abuse - I know many people will think adult sexual relationships are always consensual.  But with Catholics being taught that the clergy (priests and bishops too) are “alter Cristi”, there is a huge imbalance of power.
Placed in the wrong hands, or even in the hands of someone that’s just a man, but that reasons his way out of what he’s doing, the result can be devastating, and lives are ruined, be it intentional, or not.

Our church has all the tools available to combat Satan, and even to just keep the system going in a healthy fashion.  All we need to do is to heed and obey God’s word.  God answers prayer - and we need to pray to Him in Spirit and in *truth*.  We must show wisdom.

Joe,
“On these concepts of religiosity, while they do express a rationale to faith they are but the opinions of the “divines” as they saw themselves.
Catholicism, as on these findings with their own concepts of their faith would not necessarily read nor know of them in their, as why should they?
Another posy stated that in these meeting that a citation could be culled from their Bible and voila an instant “Amen,” regardless of the setting of that text.”
Thank you for raising some points which deserve closer consideration. Unfortunately the idea that all Protestant churches are alike and that they willy nilly pull teachings from the Bible at will is a common idea among many Catholics. This idea is promoted perhaps as part of an agenda to try to discredit all non-RC churches. The truth is that Protestant churches do comprise several groupings with some differences in theology, although most do share some important fundamental beliefs.
One basic belief among most is that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and his finished sacrifice on the cross. The other belief that many share is that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith.  These are important points of agreement between the various denominations. The particular church I belong to believes the teachings from the Bible which were brought to the fore in the Reformation by a theologian named John Calvin. Although you may be suprised to learn, these teachings, known as the doctrines of grace were at least to a major extent were taught by Augustine, the famous RC theologian in the early centuries.  John Calvin was born in France in the 1500s, became a lawyer I believe, then a Roman Catholic priest before becoming involved in the Reformation. He wrote extensively about his interpretation of the Bible in the light of Roman Catholic teachings. His fairly well-known theology book called “Institutes of the Christian Religion” was written over a period of decades I believe. His theology along with other church divines and leaders during the Reformation led to the three Confessions I mentioned. (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort and in Britain, The Westminster Confession of Faith.) Most churches that I know of do not pull new doctrines out of the Bible. They have confessions of faith which their members believe. The Reformed confessions were very carefully formed by godly men at the time of Reformation and are solidly based on the Holy Scriptures. These men were not infallible so we don’t consider the confessions to be infallible. But a church needs confessions in order to summarize what their members believe in order to help avoid wandering off into error.

WayneM, a well put theological arguement.
I would sit in Mass and at the recitation of the Creed where we say; “..look not on “our sin’s”, but on the faith of your church, it would always bother me.
I refuse to be “bundled up”  with the actions of the “church” contrary to Christ, I would much prefer Him to look at “my sins” of which I’m accountable for not anyones ele’s and what continues to be done in His name.
Also ....Lord I am not worthy… we are if we have a pure heart, He has made us so by His death and Resurection, He doesn’t want His children “snivelling” at his feet.

would sit in Mass and at the recitation of the Creed where we say; “..look not on “our sin’s”, but on the faith of your church, it would always bother me.

Yeah well, that would bother me too.  Not because I disagree with the words, but because we don’t say them in the creed.  Never have, never will.

So, what?  You don’t sin?  You don’t have Faith?  Which part of that bothers you?

Pam,
Lynne and Mk, A priest hearing a confession is not obligated to give absolution.
This is true, but I believe the question was “would God allow a priest to forgive…” not “would a priest HAVE to forgive…” and I qualified my answer by saying IF he was truly repentant.

Wayne,
This is a common misconception among Roman Catholics. The Reformed church denomination that I belong to subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, that is, The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), The Belgic Confession (1561), and the Canons of Dort (1618-1619). They also subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. Other Presbyterian (and Reformed) churches subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).
No, it’s not a misconception.  You have given me the rules for your church, which are not the same rules for Lynnes church which are not the same rules for Cradle’s church (well, Cradle doesn’t “belong” to a church), which are not the same rules for Joes Church.  Each church believes different things & they contradict each other.  About the only thing you agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Also ....Lord I am not worthy… we are if we have a pure heart, He has made us so by His death and Resurection, He doesn’t want His children “snivelling” at his feet.

Wow.  Just wow.  Anyone who has a problem saying “Lord I am not worthy to RECEIVE you” is seriously in trouble.  I can’t say that I have ever met a Christian that believed they were “good” enough, “Worthy” of God’s love.  But that just goes to my point that you all believe different things…Even the most watered down versions of non denominational churches admit that they do not merit God’s gift.  You can look at Our Lord hanging on the Cross, bleeding and broken, suffering for you and say “Yeah, well, I was worth it!”  *shakes head* Nothing surprises me anymore.

‘Look not on our sins but on the faith of your church’ is not part of the Creed.  People should know what they’re talking about before posting.
Thanks.

‘Look not on our sins but on the faith of your church’ is not part of the Creed.  People should know what they’re talking about before posting.
Thanks.

And this is what I mean by deception.  People who “pose” as Catholics when they clearly are not.

To the Non Catholics who believe in the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed: Are you aware that these Creeds came from the Holy Catholic Church? For example, the Nicene Creed is a product of the Council of Nicaea in 325 Anno Domini, which was convoked by Pope Gregory the First. If you can believe in the popes to that point, why can’t you believe in the popes after that point?

Quote from the Bible: “There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce DESTRUCTIVE SECTS, and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves,” (Peter 2:1). Are you one of these heresies or sects? I’ll keep on saying it until it dawns on you: A true church must be infallible and indefectible in order for it to be a true church. Amen.

“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given to him also wrote to you speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are somethings HARD TO UNDERSTAND that the ignorant and unstable DISTORT TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION just as they do the OTHER SCRIPTURES,” (Peter 2:15-16). Are you and/or your sect distorting the “scriptures to your/their own destruction”? 

I REPEAT: A TRUE CHURCH MUST HAVE THE CHARISMS OF INFALLIBILITY AND INDEFECTIBILITY FOR IT TO BE A TRUE CHURCH. Does your church have these charisms? If not, what are you going to do about it? May God bless you. Yes, by that I mean may God enlighten you, may God give you more brain power, may God give you greater understanding. Believe it or not.

If you wish to learn more about the Holy Catholic Church, log on to chnetwork.org.  It might be dot com. I don’t quite remember. Chnetwork was set up by highly intelligent ex Protestants, who finally saw the light. Yes, they, too, believe that the TRUE CHURCH MUST HAVE THE CHARISMS OF INFALLIBILITY AND INDEFECTIBILITY FOR IT TO BE A TRUE CHURCH. OTHERWISE ITS A FALSE CHURCH. JUST ONE ERROR MAKES IT FALSE.

I’ll keep repeating that until it dawns on you. May God bless again.

Philip,
That website is AWSOME!  Not only are the topics covered incredibly well, but the people there that are seeking are sincere, respectful (not in any way trying to prove that the church is “wrong”), open minded and honestly interested in the TRUTH. They are not there to stir up trouble, insult or demean Catholics or Catholicism.  I was really impressed and have bookmarked the site.  Thank you so much.

Philip,
“I REPEAT: A TRUE CHURCH MUST HAVE THE CHARISMS OF INFALLIBILITY AND INDEFECTIBILITY FOR IT TO BE A TRUE CHURCH.”
Perhaps you do not understand what Protestant churches believe. You think we need to be told that the RCC is infallible and that will cause Prots to not believe everything that they believe the Bible teaches and accept what Rome teaches instead. Prot churches do not believe in an infallible and indefectible church on earth. We don’t believe that is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Protestant churches such as Reformed and Presbyterian whose confessions and creeds came out of the Reformation do not believe that the RC church interpretations of the Bible are correct. In other words Prot churches do not believe the RCC is the same church which existed in the apostolic age or in the early centuries. You are correct in that most of the early creeds such as the Apostles Creed came from early church councils in the 4th century which involved the Roman church. This was before the RC church departed from the Bible in a much greater way. The Reformed church agrees with these early church creeds because they are in accordance with the Bible and what Reformed or other Prot church people believe. But the RCC was not the same church at the time of these councils as it became later. The RCC has added much false teaching over the centuries which Reformed churches and other Prot churches find to be unbiblical. In case you are not aware of these differences, I will mention just a few reasons why Prot churches think Rome is unbiblical. The rule of faith in the RCC is tradition, i.e., what the church hierarchy says is true rather than what the Holy Scripture says as interpretated by the individual believer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Another difference in belief is the RCC believes in the papal system claiming Peter was the first Pope. Reformed churches and others do not believe Peter was made a Pope and do not believe such as office was created. Other differences are the RCC believes in an earthly priesthood which Prot churches do not believe was appointed. Prot churches believe the earthly sacrificing priesthood of the Old Testament was done away with when Christ came. Christians are taught in the Bible to go directly to God through Christ for forgiveness and salvation. Prot churches do not believe there can be such a practice as the Mass because Christ has already made a complete and final atonement for sin 2000 years ago. There can be no continuing sacrifice for sin offered by an earthly priesthood. See Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews. These are a few of the reasons Prot churches cannot accept the claims of the RCC.

To mk, You’re welcome. I checked out the site, and it is chnetwork.org.

I might be back here again in a few days. I’ll let you put up with me again if the Spirit allows it. May God bless you. May God give everyone more brain power, greater understanding, greater wisdom, so that they will some day inter the Infallible, Indefectible, One, True, Apostolic, Holy, Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. No Siree, Jesus did not fail from keeping His church, and doctrine intact, beautiful, and unerringly. I not only have faith, but I can see it in the Magisterium of His Church, the Holy Catholic Church. Its dogmas have been consistent all along, but unfortuatly not some its members. May God bless you again.

LONG LIVE CHRIST THE KING!!!!

And yes, I have experienced innumerable miracles in the supernatural order. My miracles are further confirmation of Jesus’ church, the Holy Catholic Church. Incidentally, many other Catholics, some of them friends, have experienced miracles in the supernatural order. Yes, the angels can read your mind. This has been confirmed. Yes, the Blessed Virgin can read your mind. This,too, has been confirmed.

mk; if a Catholic, you would have recognised it was the Confiteor I was referring to.
No big deal.
I still don’t like to be bundled up with he sins of others especialy when confessor’s absolve heinous crimes, using the Mouthpiece of the church.
When I think of Judges, Lawyers politicians and the whole spectrum.
How can a personal committment from one answerable to a higher authority, a Mouthpiece, other than God be relied upon.
Thirty six years ago, I would never have dreamed of having these views, and it is only as Catholic that has formed them over the years, for good or not in the eyes of others.
We have to be true to God and to ourselves.

Lynne, you are making the cardinal sin of ‘relativism’, and this is bad logic too.  One cannot always be ‘true to God and to self’ unless that person is Jesus Himself.  You are not comfortable with the church ‘bundling up’ all sinners together, yet you freely bundle your ‘self’ up with God, as if you and God are always in line with the Truth, so your ‘truth’ becomes the criterion for the establishment of God’s Truth. We can therefore only be ‘true to God’ as He is the Truth, and we must be very much willing to relinquish ‘self’.  Anyone thinking they can always be true to God and self is delusional.  I have scanned a bit of this blog and have to say that you have some very strange perceptions of the Catholic Church and Sacraments born of a very incomplete knowledge of what the Church actually teaches. I suspect you are a victim of the poor catechism classes over the past 40+ years.  If we Catholics have failed in anything as a Church here in the USA, it’s the sloppy, weak, watered-down, fuzzy and even down-right heresy riddled catechism we’ve handed down to our children; Then we wonder why so many grow up to leave the Church and propagate error upon error about the Catholic Church claiming that they were raised as a Catholic so of course know ‘everything about it’.  Every single ‘former Catholic’ who has left the Church I have met exhibits these same symptoms of confusion and misunderstanding of even basic Catechism. Shame on us for created our own worst enemy: Ignorance!

Paul; if I were to have my life to live over again, the cardinal sin of relativism would be on the bottom of a very short list.
Maybe your right about the fuzzy watered down catechism, but from where I sit as convert, not reared on these precepts but instucted by a near Prince of the church I have see such insidious deeds and contadictions, that I feared losing even the faith I was reared on.
Get Right with God was the mandate first and foremost, and that was what I would obviously have expected as an extension of the seed already planted as a child.
The maniplating of Canon Law, that does not stand up in a Civl Court of Law, claiming diplomatic immunity on crimes against humanity, the lack of accountabilty of superiors and the subculture rampant within the church I embraced with my full faculties.
May name remains on the Baptism Register soley because of the spiritual contract I made, but I reserve my right to refuse to accept what my many brothers an sisters have had to do, many times over.
I’m glad your able to live in a “spiritual” house of contradictions so actively, I’m afraid I couldn’t and would never accept in my own on the same precepts.

WayneM-
The details you provided about your church is very helpful Thank you! I was once given a copy of what I think was the Westminster Confession of Faith from a Missouri Synod Lutheran church, that’s ultra conservative.  The information was written not BY Martin Luther, but it was during his time, by people that were helping reform the church back then - it contained all they believed about the faith, and written to, I think, the Magesterium of that day. 

I remembered being surprised by reading that everything in it had sound doctrine - it squared with Scripture.  I couldn’t figure out why what was in it caused such a controversy, with the exception that it did not come from the Magesterium at the time, and there had been ill will among the various parties.

So I wonder if more Catholic theologians/apologists, really understand what’s in these non-Catholic confessions.  You wrote, “But a church needs confessions in order to summarize what their members believe in order to help avoid wandering off into error.” - and that is correct.  It would be easier to understand the beliefs of non-Catholic churches, such as yours, because there are fewer sources to review. 

Even some mainstream churches are veering off into poor moral teaching now, which is why this blog began in the first place, with Lutherans coming into the Catholic fold.  It’s not like the Lutherans suddenly woke up or read something so profound in the Roman Catholic church, on a lark.  It’s that the Roman Catholic magesterium holds firm to a conservative God-honoring *moral* way of life, at least in its teaching, whereas the denominations they’d previously been affiliated with, have strayed off.

I’d love it if Catholic theologians/apologists really studied the non-Catholic confessions, etc. and believe there would be more in common than expected.  That’s why I’m concluding the Body of Christ is not any one denomination - but rather, it is a set of beliefs, creeds, confessions of faith, with a Triune Godhead (Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit) and our relationship to them being key.

Lynne correctly points out it’s a “Do as I say and not as I do”, based on what we now know about the management of the Magesterium, at the Vatican and world-wide.  But at least as an institution as it pertains to morals, the Catholic church gets it right.

Speaking of getting things right, Lynne, you wrote, “Get Right with God was the mandate first and foremost, and that was what I would obviously have expected as an extension of the seed already planted as a child.”
To that, I say, “Amen.” - all of us must get right with God.  It’s not any church membership that will do that FOR us.  It can help us- leading us in the right direction, but it is not an end unto itself, per the New Testament.

Secondly - I remembered hearing the phrase you quoted - thanks for mentioning it came from the Confetior.  I could’t place it, but knew I remembered it well.  I like that you really THINK about the words you say at Mass, or your other Sunday worship, and you don’t just say things rote.  Neither do I - I really think about what I’m saying, even when we say, “Lord, hear our prayer.” = I listen carefully to what’s being said first.

I thought you’d written you were a Catholic convert, but that with the issues our church has been facing, due to lack of good oversight, you were no longer a Catholic church-going Catholic, but perhaps you too, have another parish community where you worship, like WayneM’s.

About 10 years ago, I almost became a “Non-practicing Catholic”, where one does not go to any other church, one just stops going to Mass, etc. entirely.  The funny thing is that a friend of mine that goes to a non-denominational Bible church, insisted I not stop going to Mass.  She said, “You cannot forsake the gathering of the assembly, so find a parish community to worship - be it Catholic or otherwise - but I will not allow you to stop worshiping on Sunday!”

She’s much older than I am, and I honored her command!  I found a local Catholic church, where I found more people like me (the Bible is the Gold Standard of Measure) and we are all cradle Catholics, that just stayed in the Church, even throughout the scandals.  I’m grateful to my now very elderly friend, for not allowing me to forgo Sunday Mass, because of a variety of reasons, because if it isn’t one thing, it will be another, and we worship Jesus: Who is the ONLY completely trustworthy Person that ever lived, infallible and indefectible. (Thank you for my new word, Philip!)

Cradle,
Thank you for kind comments.
“I was once given a copy of what I think was the Westminster Confession of Faith from a Missouri Synod Lutheran church, that’s ultra conservative.”
I am not sure the Westminster Confession would be used by a Lutheran denomination because I believe Lutherans have their own confessions which originated with the Lutheran church in Germany. The Reformed confessions do differ from the Lutheran confessions in some ways. The details about the Reformed faith may be read at the website which I referred to in a previous post.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/trf/index.html
Being a reformed christian I naturally believe it to be most biblical.
However, you can read the details on that website to see for yourself. The article “The Reformed Faith” by Loraine Boettner is an excellent online resource with six chapters going to great detail describing the Reformed faith. The link above goes directly to the index. One major characteristic of the Reformed faith is the biblical teaching in the sovereignty of God. If you study this a bit, you will that is the teaching of the Bible. The other major school of thought which is found in the Lutheran churches and many others is called Arminianism. This is a system of belief which was debated in the early centuries. Augustine and early church theologians at that time rejected Arminianism which was being advanced by a man named Pelagius. Pelagius believed man worked with God’s grace, while Augustine, which was a major RC theologian at the time, taught man depends completely on the sovereign grace of God. He taught apart from God’s regenerating and redeeming grace, man can do nothing. Pelagius teachings of a kind of cooperative arrangement with God’s grace was rejected at that time.  Unfortunately, since that time, Rome has changed and rejected Augustine’s teachings on grace and embraced Arminianism. Many Prot churches are Arminian. There is an interesting video available which covers the debates on this subject right from the early church councils. It gives a good picture of how all this occurred over the centuries. Calvin was a proponent of Augustine’s teaching on the sovereign grace of God. The website link I gave goes into that in the article “The Reformed Faith”. This is an important subject to be familiar with for a number of reasons. One is the assurance of salvation. Arminianism teaches that one’s salvation depends on the individual himself to some extent; Calvinism teaches that once a person is born again he does not lose his salvation because it is God’s grace that saves a person. Since it is a work of God, it cannot be undone.
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” John ch10 vs27-29.
Regards.

Cradle,
I should also mention Reformed people still believe Lutherans and people in other denominations who believe the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ and His shed blood and know Him as their personal saviour are born again christians, even though we differ on the theology I talked about.

Lynne,
mk; if a Catholic, you would have recognised it was the Confiteor I was referring to.
No big deal.
Try again.  I hear the third time is a charm.  First of all I AM a Catholic, I don’t just play one on websites, second it is a big deal because it just shows how very little you know about a faith that you feel qualified to rip to shreds.  You do realize that when you do things like that you do not make the Catholic Church look bad, but yourself. 

First Try:

Apostles Creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

*sound of buzzer*

Second Try:

The Confiteor

I confess to Almighty God,

and to your my brothers

and sisters,

that I have sinned

through my own fault,

in my thoughts

and in my words,

in what I have done,

and in what I have failed to do;

and I ask blessed Mary,

ever virgin,

all the angels and saints,

and you, my brothers and sisters,

to pray for me

to the Lord our God.

Amen.

*sound of buzzer*

Third Try:

Rite of Peace:
Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles: I leave you peace, my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.

*BINGO*

If you are not Catholic, I don’t expect you to know the parts of the Mass, and getting confused is understandable.  It’s when you pretend to know what you do not know that I take umbrage.  I would think that a protestant would be all over the phrase “Look not on our sins, but on our faith”.  I still can’t understand why you have a problem with this…

That’s why I’m concluding the Body of Christ is not any one denomination - but rather, it is a set of beliefs, creeds, confessions of faith, with a Triune Godhead (Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit) and our relationship to them being key.

Hmmmm…kind of sounds like you’d like them to publish their RULES…lol.
And you’re right.  The Body of Christ is not any one denomination. That’s why I went out of my way to say that the CC is NOT a denomination, but the very Church that denominations come from…Catholic is not our “name”.  It is not like Baptist, or Lutheran or Episcopalian.  It is simply THE Church.  It is only because you have left The Church, that you gave your particular groups “names”.  Catholic is simply a word which means Universal.  We could just as easily call ourselves by the English word instead of the Greek one.  We are the Universal Church/Roman Rite.  Be we are not a denomination.

Wayne,
When Philip says you “do not use logic” one of things I think he means is the fact that when I said you all have different beliefs and are not united, you claimed I was mistaken.  Then you go on to put up an entire post discussing the different “confessions” of all the churches…go figure. 

I should also mention Reformed people still believe Lutherans and people in other denominations who believe the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ and His shed blood and know Him as their personal saviour are born again christians, <>Beven though we differ on the theology I talked about. </B>

I rest my case.

Lynne correctly points out it’s a “Do as I say and not as I do”

I didn’t realize you had no sinners in your Church.  We have sinners in ours.  Lots of them.  We also have a set of beliefs.  No matter how many sinners we have, we all know what we believe and if there is any question, we know where to go for answers.  Thank God we do what they say and not what they do.  I wouldn’t want to belong to a Church that encourages sin.  I am a sinner.  My pastor is a sinner.  My mother is a sinner.  That’s okay.  Because my Church is all about how to become Holy and overcome our sins.  To change our behavior.  It’s a lifetime task.  But maybe you’re right.  If your churches really don’t have sinners in them, I probably should think about joining. 

Maybe not tho.  I remember a priest once saying that if I found a church that had no sinners, I should run, not walk, away.  Otherwise, being a sinner myself, I would probably destroy their good name.  But good for you guys!  I’m happy you found a church where all your members are perfect and you don’t have to listen to what “they say” because everything “they do” is flawless.

WayneM - Thank you for your detailed response and the link.  I’ll check that out.  It’s my understanding that in Romans, Paul wrote that we were dead in our sin, when the Holy Spirit CALLED us, and DREW us to Jesus.  We weren’t sick.  We were dead.  Dead people are helpless.  Just like God called and drew Abraham, although at that point, he, like the rest, were pagan, and not worshipping the God of Israel.

I may be incorrect about this, so please correct me, if I’m wrong. But I thought it was similar to how we were saved-that God, in His Sovereignty, knew how we would respond, as he knew how Abraham would respond, thus it is by His Grace and our faith and not by our works (so no one can boast).
Though we are saved FOR good works, to glorify God.

Lynne- I’m glad you pointed out that phrase, regardless of where it comes from.  I knew I was familiar with it well, but I couldn’t remember its placement in the Mass.

A Protestant relative that married into our Catholic family (my cousin) & who worships at Mass every Sunday, once told me she objected to “..one baptism for the forgiveness of sin…” (if memory serves, it’s in the Nicene Creed)... until I mentioned to her the way I think of it is one “Born Again” Baptism, an outward reflection of an inward happening, and a turning to God from sin, which IS the forgiveness of sin.

She accepted that, right away, and has never had an issue with it since.  Prior to that, she always thought she was saying one (infant) baptism forgives sin.  I don’t intend to get off into a rabbit trail of infant baptism verses adult baptism, because the point is the Lutherans coming into the Catholic Church, and for all I know, Lutherans may baptize infants too.  But - I mention this to applaud you, Lynne, for being cautious about what you say, and really meaning it, as we are saying these words to God, and He wants us to worship Him with our hearts and not just our lips.  Just like my cousin-in-law, that is very careful of what she says at Mass too, wanting to mean what she’s praying.

I still don’t like to be bundled up with he sins of others especialy when confessor’s absolve heinous crimes, using the Mouthpiece of the church.

I know right?  Because Jesus NEVER forgave heinous crimes.  Forgiveness is for pansies.  ;)

MK,
“Wayne,
When Philip says you “do not use logic” one of things I think he means is the fact that when I said you all have different beliefs and are not united, you claimed I was mistaken.  Then you go on to put up an entire post discussing the different “confessions” of all the churches…go figure.”
I tried to explain to you that we do have different beliefs in some areas but most Prot churches believe in salvation by simple faith in Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Saviour. Many also agree that the Bible is the final authoritative rule of faith. This is common between most Prot churches and is fundamental to the faith which we hold. There are differences in theology in other areas but many of these doctrines are not esential to salvation. The fact we have different confessions does not prove we differ on the way of salvation. Also the Westminister Confession of Faith which is used by many Presbyterian Churches and some Reformed is very similar to the Reformed Church confessions which are the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession and Canons of Dort. There are points of doctrine which these churches would agree with Baptists and other evangelical churches. As I said many RCs think Prot churches are completely at odds with each other which is not true. RCs need to study this more to get the true facts.

Wayne,

There are differences in theology in other areas but many of these doctrines are not esential to salvation. The fact we have different confessions does not prove we differ on the way of salvation.

Sure it does.  Some of you believe that you must be baptized to achieve salvation, and some of you believe it doesn’t matter.  Some of you believe once saved, always saved.  Those seem pretty critical to salvation to me.

A convert to Catholicism I am, I just had to rid myself of the facial “zits” due to the diet.
Philip’s mention of the stigma was interesting, I believe it’s not compulsory to believe in it.
“Padre Pio” automatically comes to mind, the power of the mind can do remarkable things, the “wounds” leaving no evidence at death sounds typical.
I see where he is now under investigation. With permission from Rome and encouragement from his Order to promulgate this devotion for decades, the faithful once again left in spiritual dilusion.. 
Millions and millions of dollars changing hands in both instances.

As I said many RCs think Prot churches are completely at odds with each other which is not true. RCs need to study this more to get the true facts.

To clarify:  I do not think you are completely at odds with each other.  I believe that you are not “UNITED” in your beliefs.  Jesus wanted His Church to be ONE, not 33,000.  If the differences you cite are not all that important, then why all the splits?  I assume the splits came about because of those differences.  Catholics are united.  They are ONE church.  We have different customs and different rites, but we are 100% united on our beliefs.  One of the reasons we are introducing a cleaner translation from Latin to other languages next year is to make us even MORE united.  I should be able to walk into a Catholic Church in Singapore, Poland or Tanzania and participate in the exact same Mass.  This is what Christ had in mind when He instituted His Church…His Heaven here on earth, His Bride…ONE body, not 33,000 bodies.  With one VISIBLE head.  Not one head mind you, but one VISIBLE head.  God is the head of the Church, but He left Peter and every subsequent Pope as the VISIBLE heads of His Body, here on earth.  That was HIS plan, not ours.  For all your talk of following Scripture, you ignore the simplest, clearest mandates written on those pages.  Baptism by water, the seven sacraments, the ONE HOLY UNIVERSAL APOSTOLIC Church, the Eucharist…All of these are plain spoken, clear and not given to different interpretations.  Period.  It’s that simple.  Do what He says, as well as what He did.

Cradle,
“It’s my understanding that in Romans, Paul wrote that we were dead in our sin, when the Holy Spirit CALLED us, and DREW us to Jesus.  We weren’t sick.  We were dead.  Dead people are helpless.  Just like God called and drew Abraham, although at that point, he, like the rest, were pagan, and not worshipping the God of Israel.”
I believe you are correct. Christians are dead in sins and trespasses and it is only by the grace of God that they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  Ephesians speaks about this. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Ephesians 1:4-6
Praise God for His wonderful salvation which is in Christ Jesus.  Notice from these verses and others in this chapter that it is God who predestinates us to himself by Jesus Christ. It is entirely according to His grace and good pleasure from eternity past. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9 It is from verses such as these that the Reformed faith confesses that salvation is entirely by God’s unmerited favour or grace, and that it is God who predestinated the elect.
Blessings.

Lynne,
A convert to Catholicism I am, I just had to rid myself of the facial “zits” due to the diet.
Philip’s mention of the stigma was interesting, I believe it’s not compulsory to believe in it.
“Padre Pio” automatically comes to mind, the power of the mind can do remarkable things, the “wounds” leaving no evidence at death sounds typical.
I see where he is now under investigation. With permission from Rome and encouragement from his Order to promulgate this devotion for decades, the faithful once again left in spiritual dilusion..
Millions and millions of dollars changing hands in both instances.

First, if you’re a convert, I’m the Queen of England.  Second, it’s Stigmata, not Stigma and Third, Padre Pio is a saint.  Canonized.  There is no investigation.  Get off the anti Catholic sites and you’d know that.  As for your zits, try proactive.  Why do you lie and claim to be a Catholic?  Why does Cradle?  Why not just be honest?  Why all the charade?  Why do you constantly portray yourself as something that you are not?  Do you fancy yourselves “Spies for Jesus”?  Seriously, what kind of a Christian that professes Love of Christ, goes into Churches, poses as their members and then attacks everything about that Church from within?  If you don’t like it, leave.  It’s so simple.  Do you really think you’re clever?  Wouldn’t your time be better spent feeding the poor or evangelizing for what you DO believe?

WayneM- Thanks for confirming what I thought with the verses.  Somewhere Jesus also said that no one can take from His Hand, any of those that the Father gave to Him.  Thus, I do believe once saved, always saved.

Lynne- Where we worship isn’t as important as that we worship.  Eternal life with God is… eternal, and it’s better we get to know Him more and more now.  So congratulations that you’re looking up, not just focusing on Rome, or your local parish.  Sounds like you’ve had some painful experiences, with being let down by those that formed your Catholic faith.
It’s good that you can see that in perspective, and that your eye is on Him.  Keeping the Main Thing, the Main Thing - the Gospel: the life, death, resurrection, ascension and the coming again, of Jesus, Our Lord.

I too, don’t believe the stigmata and much of the other things that are Vatican-approved over the years for two reasons.  1) Each puts the focus on people and takes it away from Jesus, and 2) just recently, I was at a church function where I learned that there are folks that want to make yet another saint, and when I heard about the process they were using (first, find an influential and wealthy supporter and secondly, find a group of bishops to back the idea, then wait… for maybe 10 years), I was turned off.  It made me wonder if many, if not all, of our saints were created in the same manner.

Some of them - like what I’ve read about St. Gemma Gagliani, who I wonder if she ever even OPENED a Bible in her 24 years on earth - seem almost mentally disturbed, which could be seen as “holy” in generations past. 

That’s why I just focus on Him, and on the Bible, His Word, and I know I can’t go wrong.  All the rest - be it true or not, just distracts me from Him.  And it’s also why so many Christians ask Catholics, “Are Catholics Christian?”

There would be no doubt that we ARE Christian, if only we focused on the Bible, and in asking our clergy to preach and teach matters of Eternal Value.  It would result in Jesus’ prayer being honored, in that He asked the Father for Church unity.  It goes without saying that we’d be unified under Him, and with Bible truths as our guide- the same as you described, WayneM, with the confessions, creed, that all focus on the Gospel and all the New Testament writings, including that of Paul, most especially Romans, which I’ve heard some call “The Christian Constitution.”

Castelli explained that the recent opening of the archives that contain the information on the first investigations show that it is not true that the Holy Office was suspicious of Padre Pio, but rather that there was admiration and appreciation for him.

In 1921, the Holy Office charged Bishop Carlo Raffaello Rossi, who would later be made cardinal, with visiting Padre Pio to investigate his life and the origin of his stigmata. In his report, Bishop Rossi wrote that Padre Pio “held his head high and was serene, his look lively and sweet, his words gleamed with kindness and sincerity.”

The task that began on June 14 of that year lasted for eight days, during which Bishop Rossi observed Padre Pio in detail. He wrote that he was very gentle with his brothers, beloved by his superiors for being a “great example and not a gossiper.” He spent 10-12 hours a day in the confessional and he celebrated the Mass with “extraordinary devotion.”

Bishop Rossi said the observations were not sufficient and he decided to interview Padre Pio, who responded to 142 questions under oath with his hand on the Gospels. Castelli says his answers almost constituted a complete biography.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29539

MK,
I’m really not sure where this 33,000 figures comes from. There are only a handful or so of denominations in the small town I live. There is one Baptist, one Evangelical Free church, one RC, one Anglican, one Lutheran, one United Church, and a several Reformed churches. As you know denominations are not mentioned in the Bible. We don’t consider it as imperative that the whole world belong to the same church such as the RC believes. The RCC seems to consider it as a requirement that everyone belong to the RCC and accept that system with it’s earthly head of the church.  We don’t see that requirement in the Bible. We believe the true church exists whereever christians are gathered, the sacraments are properly administered, and the Word of God is properly preached. I could be incorrect in some detail of that definition, but that is the general idea. However, we believe in freedom of religion and if that’s what you wish to believe, it is your prerogative. What is considered imperative is one’s relationship to God through Jesus Christ. At the judgment that is what God will be looking at; not what church one attended although we believe if one is a christian, he should belong to a Bible-believing church because that is what honours God.—Cheers

MK,
Here’s some food for thought. You say the RCC is completely united, but this is more of a corporate structure which people have allegiance to. Being part of a giant top-down controlled structure does not seem to prove much in the spiritual sphere except everyone belongs to the same organization. There are many divisions over various issues within the RCC. There are troubles over sexual abuse which has caused a kind of crisis within. We believe the unity Jesus spoke about in John ch17 was referring to a spiritual unity in Christ by faith in accordance with the gospel, not an earthly corporate unity. This spiritual unity transcends any earthly corporate structure and defines the church down through the ages, the body of Christ.

MK,
You questioned Cradle and Lynn calling themselves Catholic because they disagree with many things about the RCC. Here is an interesting thought. Did you know the people in the Reformed church and denomination which I belong to consider themselves as catholic? They confess and recite the Apostle’s Creed every Sunday afternoon. Of course they are not claiming to be Roman Catholic, just simply catholic because the word simply means universal.

For WayneM to Joe…Wayne, Calvin was never an R.C. priest although his father (I believe it was) had purchased certain Church “benefices” for him (very Medieval R.C.ism)...Also for Phlip Saenz-The first ecumenical council was called, not by Gregory the Great, (Where did you ever get that idea?) but by Constantine the Great and not (R.C. apologists take note) by Pope Sylvester I…Being Lutheran born and bred, I probably do not recognize the short-comings of my own tradition.  However, despite prominent “defections,”  I think Elizabeth the New Martyr, recently canonized by the Orthodox Church, put it so well when she left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy (her choice, not a requirement as with Alexandra, her sister) when she said, “Lutherans are so self-satisfied.”  I think she meant, “Lutherans are so confident in the grace of God.” Yours in Xto, James E. Townsend, Lutheran minister, retired

James E. Townsend,
Thank you for correcting me. I somehow had thought John Calvin had been a priest, but was mistaken.  He came from a strong RC family and had studied law. There are a number of websites which give his biography and he was not a priest, although he had been a Roman Catholic until he was converted and got involved in the Reformation, eventually becoming a key leader in the Reformation from Geneva.

Wayne,
The figure comes from David Barrets Christian Encyclopedia.  To be fair, he seems to have lumped similar churches that he only separates because they have the country of their origin in front of their name…like the African Apostolic Church and the German Apostolic Church…he did the same for the Catholic Church, confusing the different rites and calling them separate denominations.  However, even the sites that disagree with his numbers admit that there are 9,000 different protestant denominations.  So for the sake of honesty, let’s agree that there are 9,000 different protestant churches.  That’s a LOT of division by anyone’s standards.

Wayne,
MK,
You questioned Cradle and Lynn calling themselves Catholic because they disagree with many things about the RCC. Here is an interesting thought. Did you know the people in the Reformed church and denomination which I belong to consider themselves as catholic? They confess and recite the Apostle’s Creed every Sunday afternoon. Of course they are not claiming to be Roman Catholic, just simply catholic because the word simply means universal.

First, I think that’s wrong.  It’s the same kind of deception that I am accusing Lynne and Cradle of.  What kind of people call themselves Christian and then lie?  Or try to destroy a church by capitalizing on their name.  How would you feel if a church called itself the Bible Christian Church of Tennessee and then professed to believe that Jesus was not God and did not rise from the dead and that Scripture was a lie?

I assume you’d be mortified.  How dare they?  More importantly, why would they?  It is so dishonest I am at a loss for words.  To say you are Catholic, go to websites and Catholic Churches, masquerading, for the sole purpose of confusing the members…well that to me is lower than low.  If you don’t believe what another church believes, say so, state your case, make your argument, but don’t play reindeer games and see yourself as some super spy out to save the world.  Jesus would deplore those tactics…and so do I.  I imagine you would too.  I would hate it just as much if a Catholic were to join a synagogue, claim he was Jewish and infiltrate from within.  Talk about a heinous crime.  Talk about cowardly.  If you believe you have the Truth, you don’t need to lie to proclaim it.

Wayne,
You say the RCC is completely united, but this is more of a corporate structure which people have allegiance to.

That’s ridiculous.  That’s like saying that the apostles were a corporate structure and Jesus was the CEO.  We are united because we accept the scriptural and traditional truths that have been passed down for centuries.  The fact that money is involved is irrelevant.  The idea that the CC is rich is erroneous.  She isn’t. 

And yes, there are MEMBERS who disagree with doctrines and teachings.  But that has nothing to do with the teachings.  We are not called to agree, we are called to obey.  And when we fail to obey we are called to repentance.  Any disagreements can be settled by reading the catechism.  Neither I nor the pope can control one and a half billion people.  All we can do is put out there what the church teaches and let every man work out his journey for himself.  The Truth does not change.  It is objective.  That’s all that matters, that the Truth is taught.  The subjective acceptance of that Truth is a personal matter.  The Magesterium is not a police force.  Each member of the Church has access to what she teaches and when a member falls they have recourse to the sacrament of confession.  If they do not take advantage of that, in the end they will have to face God, not the Pope.  The spiritual unity is in the teachings, the sacraments and most especially, the Eucharist.  But bottom line is every man will have to answer to God. 

If you believed as we do, that Jesus is truly present, in the flesh, right there, in the room, then you would understand why statements like Cradle makes (Don’t you think we pay to much attention to the Eucharist and not enough to the “word”) are infuriating.  There is a difference between the “WordS” and the “WORD”.  The WORD is a person.  And that person is right there in every Catholic Church in the world.  Why would I place the written words above the living WORD…why would I place the book above the Man Himself???

Shame Reverend on you, this is a respectable magazine, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, October 2008, God’s War
“Self-described fundamentalists are a diverse group, partly because there are many competing definitions of the term “fundamentalist” and, in keeping with the decentralized and sectarian character of American Protestantism, there is no generally accepted authoritative body to define what fundamentalists are or believe. As used here, the term “fundamentalist” involves three characteristics: a high view of biblical authority and inspiration; a strong determination to defend the historical Protestant faith against Roman Catholic and modernist, secular, and non-Christian influence; and the conviction that believers should separate themselves from the non-Christian world.”
Look what the reach out to Protestantism did for the Roman Catholic Church, the arrogance of some has gone too far. Sic Transit Gloria

MK,
You may be partially correct. But if the RC is willing to have them and considers them as members even if they disagree about a lot of things, I guess they still are members. It is probably hard to get one’s self kicked out. I know there are priests who are very long-suffering about people who disagree about many things and are willing to overlook it. It is good to be tolerant of people with different views and criticisms of things sometimes.

MK,
“If you believed as we do, that Jesus is truly present, in the flesh, right there, in the room, then you would understand why statements like Cradle makes (Don’t you think we pay to much attention to the Eucharist and not enough to the “word”) are infuriating”
I understand you are a strong RC. That’s fine. But why be infuriated? The world is full of people with different beliefs and opinions. There are probably no two people in the world that believe exactly the same about everything. I try not to be stressed out about people with different views. It’s better for our health to accept it. I know there are people in my church who disagree with a lot of my views, but I try not to let it get to me.

Mk, the medication you took a few days ago for lack of humility should be increased.

mk, what a hoot, of course I’m Catholic and a few home truths never go amiss.
If you can believe some of the rubbish, contradictions and retractions coming from the mouths of not just a few bishops and Princes of the Church well…..what can I say.
A Commissioner for Equal Opportunity where I hail from states:
A religous body is permitted to do things that conform with it’s religious doctrine, OR Necessary to avoid injuring the religious feelings of members of its faith, thats not for outsiders that’s for us.
Where does that leave the church and how treats it’s own, that includes you and I, with the obvious coverups for decades, with the treatment of intelligent adults, laity and religious the list just goes on and on.
On a personal and individual basis, your life is worth zilch, it’s the united front that matters.
If Popes don’t make a name for themselves personally, whilst alive, it boils down to:
The Pope is dead. Long live the Pope.

Wayne,

I understand you are a strong RC. That’s fine. But why be infuriated? The world is full of people with different beliefs and opinions. There are probably no two people in the world that believe exactly the same about everything. I try not to be stressed out about people with different views. It’s better for our health to accept it. I know there are people in my church who disagree with a lot of my views, but I try not to let it get to me.

Wayne, as I’ve said, it’s not the disagreements.  It the intentional deception that infuriates me.  You disagree with me, and I’m fine with that.

If I came to your church, became a Presbyterian, and then proceeded to go up to all the members of your church and tell them that they’d be great people if only they’d stop believing all the things that make them Presbyterian…and further, went to Newspapers and Blogs,  spreading the word that while I am an active Presbyterian, I hate Presbyterians.  Told them that I am the ONLY Presbyterian that knows what it REALLY means to be Presbyterian…that you, personally are messed up because you believe the bible is sacred, that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that Jesus only a man and that THESE are the thing you need to believe to TRULY by a good Presbyterian…that you were a Baaaad Presbyterian because you didn’t think like me, and I knew better than all your confessions, and elders and fellow churchgoers….

Don’t you see that there is a difference between that and a fellow parishioner who is simply struggling with some of the teachings?  It’s the willful, intentional, arrogance that gets to me.  Not sincere doubt or simple disagreement.

Wayne,
Where does that leave the church and how treats it’s own, that includes you and I, with the obvious coverups for decades, with the treatment of intelligent adults, laity and religious the list just goes on and on.
On a personal and individual basis, your life is worth zilch, it’s the united front that matters.
If Popes don’t make a name for themselves personally, whilst alive, it boils down to:
The Pope is dead. Long live the Pope.

There you go…just like I said.  She poses as a Catholic, pretends she is part of the church, because that gives her and apparent “authority” to say the things she does that she wouldn’t have if she were an “outsider”, and attacks the very essence of what it MEANS to be Catholic.

I’ll say it again.  It’s not honest disagreement I have a problem with.  It’s liars I have a problem with.  If every statement that Lynn and Cradle made were because they were protestant, I would answer each one with patience.  Because I understand that people disagree.  But that is not what’s going on here.  It a deception, meant to deceive YOU and other Catholics so that you think to yourself, wow, those girls are CATHOLIC and even THEY think the church is wrong. 

It’s not like they are disagreeing with whether woman should wear chapel veils or girls should be altar servers.  These woman are attacking the very heart of the Church.  Out with the Papacy, The Eucharist, Confession, the Priesthood…In with Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and OSAS.  This is not just disagreeing Wayne, this is an intentional attempt to cause confusion, decisiveness and discord among not Protestants and Catholics, but Catholics and Catholics.  They view themselves as some sort of missionaries.  You wouldn’t like it anymore than I do if they came into your church and started telling your members that you’d all be so much better if you only believed in the Pope, the True Presence, The Sacrament of Confession and the Apostolic Priesthood, all the while claiming to be one of your church.

Bluesky,

Sweetheart, I told you that the only problem I had on this board was with the liars.  I have not said one rude word to anyone else here.  It is not arrogance that causes me to speak out, but a desire to expose deceit.  If Lynne and Cradle would admit that they are Protestant and drop the charade that they are members of the Catholic Church, I would cease with the angry retorts.  I have no respect for dishonesty, and will not treat it with the same consideration I give to sincere disagreements. 

It’s akin to a person coming onto a ProLife blog, claiming to be ProLife and then proceeding to say that women should have the right to abort their own children.  It’s hypocrisy at least and heresy at worst.

But if the RC is willing to have them and considers them as members even if they disagree about a lot of things, I guess they still are members. It is probably hard to get one’s self kicked out.

Actually Wayne, I believe that Cradle has been asked to cease and desist or leave by more than one priest.  Don’t know about Lynne, but if her comments about the Confiteor and the Creed are any indication, I doubt she has spent more than ten minutes in any Catholic Church and only poses as a Catholic on the internet.  It’s kind of sad actually.  They could both be doing so much good in the name of Jesus instead of wasting everyones time.

I promise you Wayne, I spent over 3 months, every day, giving Cradle the benefit of the doubt.  Patiently and kindly explaining each and every detail of why we believe what we believe…she admitted it here…I could show you the thousands upon thousands of comments exchanged between her and I (and twelveoaks) where I was gracious and open…I spent virtually hours every day researching every question that they had, I have notebooks FULL of that research.  No question went unaddressed…all because I believed they were sincere.  Only to find out that it was all a game to them.  Cradle will sweet talk and complement anyone who will listen to her just to get them to believe her, and then lead them on a wild goose chase.  The girl I share my blog with kept telling me she was a scam artist.  Pulled up all kinds of stuff on her…but I wouldn’t believe her.  Instead I believed Cradle.  Thought she was a Catholic who had lost her way and treated her like a sister.  I cried the day I realized it was all a ploy.  So forgive me if I have no patience with her now and wish to save some other poor soul from the same fate. 

Here is just a sampling of what went on last year…

http://2secondsfaster.com/?s=the+eucharist+the+mass+and+scripture

Take a rest mk, and full marks for fighting for the faith.
What is happening here, is that we are coming from different perspectives that’s all, you as a cradle me a “ringin”, but still there all the same, signed and sealed.
Be well.

Lynne,

If it is true that you are a convert and are simply struggling with some of the flaws of the church, then I apologize.  I still have my doubts, but I’ll keep them to myself.  In the future it would help if you expressed your doubts in humility and sought understanding rather than come out with guns blazing in full attack mode.

I have not and never would, deny that the Church has gone through some horrible moments.  Men are weak. I am as ashamed as the next guy over the handling of the sex scandal…the difference between us is that I don’t throw the Church under the bus with the bath water.  I defend the Church, while acknowledging the flaws of her members.  There are some articles of Faith that cannot be disavowed if you want to remain a Catholic.  The priesthood is valid, the Pope is the visible head of the Church because that’s the way Jesus wanted it, the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ in our midst and a contrite heart in the confessional warrants absolution, given by a priest.  That’s our faith.  Period.  Whether or not it is practiced perfectly is a different story.  But you don’t dis the doctrine because people are flawed.  That’s dishonest and confusing to Catholics who are struggling with the same issues you are.
Be well yourself, but also be True.

MK, Cradle, Lynne,
I see your point MK and will give it some consideration. As a general rule, if someone cannot agree with the basic doctrines of a church, they should leave or be required to leave by the church’s leadership (priest or bishop?). In Cradle’s case, I would say Cradle should consider switching to a Protestant church as a visitor to see if a suitable church can be found. I suggested a Reformed or good Presbyterian church. Some Presbyterian churches have drifted away from the Bible to some extent and have become more Liberal. A good Reformed church might be a better choice unless one can find a good bible Presbyterian church. I did say earlier Cradle would fit in with a Prot church. Cradle, continuing in the RCC doesn’t make much sense; I think you are beating a dead horse so to speak. And you are possibly causing unnecessary animosity with people who will not be convinced of your position. The Bible says “can two walk together except they be agreed?” The Bible command as far as christians are concerned is to come out of a church which does not meet the requirements for a true church (2 Corinthians ch.6) Cradle, please examine that chapter.  I think your life would be happier in a Prot church, although you may have some friction and falling out with relatives, unless they get used to it and accept it. Play that part of it low key. Not sure if you have a spouse, but that might require wisdom to deal with if you are not in agreement. I haven’t read everything Lynne said and not sure if she fits in the same category or not.

MK,
I have a great deal of respect for Lynne speaking her mind on things in the RCC which trouble her. I am sure she is not alone. She mentioned “coverups for decades, with the treatment of intelligent adults, laity and religious the list just goes on and on.”  These matters which she raises have little or nothing to do with basic doctrines of the RCC. I believe a person has a right to complain and speak out about serious concerns within the church, which is all she is doing. I think she is to be congratulated for her courage. I don’t agree with your advice that she should be humble (quiet?) about the problems. Is it the belief of the RCC that women should be seen but not heard, even if they have legitimate complaints. Perhaps that is where you are getting that from.

Lynne,
While I’m on my bandwagon, may I suggest if you have doubts about some key RCC dogmas, you check what the Holy Scriptures teach in the New Testament. You may be better off looking for a Bible-believing Prot church such as I suggested to Cradle. check the website:
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/trf/index.html
If you are not ready to leave the RCC, may I suggest you study the article on that website. It is called “The Reformed Faith” by Loraine Boettner. It is a series of excellent articles.  He also has a book called “Roman Catholicism” which he wrote about 40 years ago, but is a very thorough examination of Roman Catholicism in the light of the Bible and history. It could be very helpful if you are searching for the truth. The most important document is the Holy Scriptures, gospel of John and epistles of the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter as well as the three letters of 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John.  Regards.

Wayne,
You aren’t winning any converts here.  You are just embarrassing yourself with your ignorance of the RCC.  If you are basing your view of RCC on Loraine Boettner, I suggest reading Scott Hahn’s books.  Scott Hahn was one of Boettner’s biggest fans and then started studying the RCC faith for himself.  He ended up leaving his reformed faith (he was a PCA pastor) to become Catholic.  He has written about 10-15 books.  I will keep you in my prayers.

Here are the 3 steps I took that lead me into the RCC 7 years ago.

STEP 1) Does the Bible support the Catholic view or the Protestant view of authority and ecclesiology?

A) The Bible points to the 4 marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

B) The Bible points to 3 legs of an authority: scripture, tradition and teaching office

C) The Bible points to succession passed to the bishops

STEP 2) Does the early church support the Catholic view or the Protestant view of authority and ecclesiology?

A) The Church fathers point to the 4 marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

B) The Church fathers point to 3 legs of an authority: scripture, tradition and teaching office

C) The Church fathers point to succession passed to the bishops

STEP 3) Does logic support the Catholic view or Protestant view of authority and ecclesiology?

A) The Protestant view is built on the false assumption that scripture interprets itself

B) The Protestant view guarentees a sacrafice of either unity or objective truth.  The Proestant reformation is the father of Postmodernism

C) We needed an authoritative church to define the canon of scripture.  The Catholic Church defined the New Testament canon I accepted as a Protestant

I would be happy to send some books to counter Loraine Boettner.  Send me an email at timrcooper@hotmail.com and I will get them to you without charge.

Lynne Newington, Cradle,
Loraine Boettner’s excellent examination of Roman Catholicism can be read online at:
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/roman_catholicism.htm

My offer to Wayne goes to Lynne Newington and Cradle as well.  Send me an email with your address and I will send you some books and CDs that expose the half-truths and false straw-man arguements of Loraine Boettner.  God bless you on your spiritual journey.

Tim Cooper,
Sorry Tim, I don’t give my E-mail or address out. But I have read a lot of other things besides Loraine Boettner. He is not my sole source. I prefer to take my final authority from the Bible. You said you were convinced to join the RCC seven years ago. How long had you been a member of a Protestant denomination and which one?  Were you attending regularly? What was your understanding of salvation at that time? Were you influenced to change by marriage or some other factor?

Wayne,

I apologized to Lynne if I have misread here.  By humble I mean that you speak carefully.  Scandal is a sin and if speaking in a certain way causes others to doubt, not to question things like the priest scandal, but to question their beliefs, then you have to be very gentle.  I understand her feelings of betrayal…I felt betrayed also.  But not by the church.  I felt betrayed by the people who committed the abuse and the people who covered it up.  When you confuse the two, you can end up confusing good, faithful Catholics.

In no way did I mean because she is a woman (I’m a woman also) and the CC actually does and has always held women in the highest of esteem.  Were there individuals priests or bishops in certain time periods who did not honor women?  Of course, but our Church Teaching is such that women are given the greatest of worth.  I was just reading that it was the woman who flocked to the early church because it was the one place where they were treated as “people” and not “property”.

Now if you’d like to get back to our regularly scheduled programming, I’d love to hear about what your church believes and tell you about mine.  In a fair, open and honest atmosphere.  You’re right, we probably have a lot in common….thanks for being patient with my outbursts.  You’re a good example of what it means to be a Christian.  I’d walk alongside you, proudly, any day.

Wow.  So sad to read these comments. MK thank you for standing up for the faith.  The anger does not help you though. Be at peace that people recognize the inconsistency in some of the posters remarks. Lynn and Cradle, You would attack Padre Pio?  Are you aware of the number of witness from different parts of the world to his gift of bilocation, the odor of sanctity, reading souls - in addition to his stigmata?  MK is right that this is not the place to vent about issues you should be taking up with a holy priest.  There are priests who are known for their sanctity in every area of the country and you need to seek them out if you are at all sincere.  You want to dismiss Pope Leo XIIIth’s vision and any visions - even Fatima that had a sign witnessed by 70000 which included atheists who weren’t atheists after the sign.  Go ahead.  It is not mandated that you believe, but when you question basic Church teaching then it’s not here you should be seeking answers.  It’s with a holy priest.  You, as Catholics, realize this is Lent.  Jesus was humiliated,chained,interrogated, slapped, spit upon, scourged, mocked, tortured,made to carry the cross He would be crucified on, stripped, nailed to that cross for our sins, so that we might (if we are open to it),be open to a life of grace with the Father that His Obedience won for us. Do you think you please Him attacking His Church?  Don’t you see the scourges you add, the insults and humiliation?  Who is your father?  Wayne: Cradle and Lynne are in the true faith. They are in the Church that has the fullness of truth.  They need to go to confession to a Holy priest because they are falling out of a state of grace and being mislead. They are making themselves God. The crisis of faith is everywhere.  Protestant denominations have sexual abuse and scandals involving married priests. Some have ordained openly homosexual men living in homosexual relations.  We have all been under attack.  That doesn’t change the truth of who we are.  If you read Scott Hahn as mk suggests, you might find you will join us.  I have experienced Jesus truly present in the Eucharist, His healing in the sacrament of reconciliation, His protection in my marriage.  Despite our sins, the Holy Spirit is watching over the Catholic Church.

MK,
You wish to separate the church from the sexual abuse crisis and claim that it is purely the individual’s responsibility. I think that is a mistake. Some major contributors of the problem are I believe the institution of celebacy, the confessional, and the unbiblical doctrine of elevating men to such a high stature (alter christus), where the people blindly trust them. Pam speaks about “holy priests” This is evidence that in her mind that some of these men are elevated to a position of sanctity which is far more than sinful and fallible mortals should be looked upon. These men are living in a setting where they are deprived of the normal company of a loving woman found in a normal marriage relationship. They are expected to suppress their normal desires which God has created in every person. Yet they are put in situations of personal contact with people which should not happen. Can anyone play with fire and not be burned? Can anybody be suprised what the outcome in many cases would be?

MK,
Thank you for your gracious comments. They are far more than I deserve.
The problems related to sexual abuse seem to me to be more likely caused by the system of celebacy, the confessional, and blind trust rather than the type of individuals coming into the priesthood. Could this all be traced back to a misinterpretation of the Bible far back in history?

Wayne,

Some major contributors of the problem are I believe the institution of celebacy, the confessional, and the unbiblical doctrine of elevating men to such a high stature (alter christus), where the people blindly trust them

A lot of people have that misconception.  But let’s look at the reality.  Those priests molested boys and young men.  Not girls.  There was a perversion going on there that had nothing to do with celibacy.  It was an infiltration of our Church by men who either knowingly entered the priesthood in order to take advantage of an all male clergy or to be close to boys and young men.  These men were not interested in sex with women, so being married would have done nothing to stop them. 

The priesthood is not only biblical but is mandated by Our Lord.  God has never left us without leaders and HE instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper…He also instituted the Eucharist there.  This is one of the areas that Cradle, TwelveOaks and I discussed at length and I painstakingly laid out the biblical arguments.  It took months and I doubt that you want to go there again.  Read John’s Bread of Life Discourse and then read the Last Supper accounts.  Keep in mind that this was passover and that in the temple sacrifices were being made to God.  In every home a lamb was being eaten in memory of the first passover.  I pointed out that “Remember” in Judaism is not to simply recall, but to actually re enter the occasion.  Jews at passover are not simply recalling the original passover, but re entering it and living it…This is what Jesus meant when He said “Do this in MEMORY of me”  He meant, re enter this moment as the Jews re enter passover.  Jesus was that Paschal Lamb.  Jesus is the new Sacrifice and it is a perpetual sacrifice.  Every man woman and child before His crucifixion and resurrection and after it, are able to access the cross by this “REMEMBRANCE”...that’s one of the purposes of the Mass.  It is re entering that moment on the cross.  Another aspect is that Jesus Himself comes down to us, in the flesh.  He doesn’t look like Jesus, He looks like ordinary bread and wine…but there is nothing ordinary about it…THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD…Do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.  It is at that moment that He institutes the priesthood.  We don’t elevate individual priests, they are just men.  But they are the only persons on earth that can turn that bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ.  I don’t admire Barack Obama, but I still respect the office…likewise, I revere the office of the priest, even tho I often dislike the particular priest.  Without our priests, there would be no Jesus here on earth.  And that would be a tragedy.

Pam,
The anger does not help you though.

I know, I know.  I sat in the adoration chapel today and begged Him to help me keep my mouth shut.  I just hate seeing other people get dragged into the games.  Wayne is sincere and so much of this post got hijacked simply dissing the Church (and it was being done by the Catholics!) that there was no chance to truly advance the conversation and bring more light into the room.  I love discussing the Faith with almost anyone.  And I really do usually keep my temper.  ;)

Great comments guy’s and the considerations given.
I’m not going anywhere, just choosey what “manure” I’m being fertilized with, growing where I’m planted in the garden of life.

Lynne,

As well you should be.  The Church that Christ left us is all about Truth, but it is not above the attacks of Satan.  If you’re being fed lies, consider the sources.  Immerse yourself in good Catholic literature, find an orthodox Church near you, befriend good, strong, obedient Catholics, spend time in front of the Eucharist, go to mass and confession often and trust that the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.  If priests have gone bad, God is strong enough to handle it.  You can certainly admit (and you should) when you see wrongdoing but make sure to differentiate between the wrongs that men do and the Rights that the Catholic Faith holds.  There is nothing so wrong with the Catholic Church that it cannot be fixed with what is right with it…(Can’t remember who said that, but it’s so true!)  pax…

MK,
What is your first name or do you prefer to remain MK?
“I pointed out that “Remember” in Judaism is not to simply recall, but to actually re enter the occasion.  Jews at passover are not simply recalling the original passover, but re entering it and living it…This is what Jesus meant when He said “Do this in MEMORY of me”  He meant, re enter this moment as the Jews re enter passover.  Jesus was that Paschal Lamb.  Jesus is the new Sacrifice and it is a perpetual sacrifice.  Every man woman and child before His crucifixion and resurrection and after it, are able to access the cross by this “REMEMBRANCE”...that’s one of the purposes of the Mass.”
_______________________
I understand that Romanism is a re-establishment of a sacrificial system. That is what the Mass is. It is similar to the Old Testament Jewish sacrificial system. You confirmed this. According to RC teaching, it is not just a memorial, but rather a continuation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. You also confirmed that according to Rome’s doctrine, you are able to access the cross through this sacrifice which is conducted and is “one of the purposes of the Mass.  All of this may be confirmed as the true doctrine of Rome by examining the RCC catechism online at various websites.
Since no instructions are given in the New Testament for the institution of a sacrificial system, it became necessary for Rome to invent the system of the Mass. By taking Christ’s words “this do in remembrance of me.” 1 Cor. 11:24, a whole new sacrificial system was invented. Protestant churches believe the elements are figurative or representative of the body and blood of Christ shed for sinners. Boettner says,
“The so?called sacrifice in the mass certainly is not identical with that on Calvary, regardless of what the priests may say. There is in the mass no real Christ, no suffering, and no bleeding. And a bloodless sacrifice is ineffectual. The writer of the book of Hebrews says that “apart from shedding of blood there is no remission” of sin (9:22); and John says, “The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Since admittedly there is no blood in the mass, it simply cannot be a sacrifice for sin.
In the New Testament the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is always presented as a sacrament, never as a sacrifice. Furthermore according to the Levitical law a sin offering was never to be eaten and all eating of blood, even animal blood, and much more the eating of human blood, was strictly forbidden. The fact that in the Lord’s Supper the elements are eaten is proof in itself that it was never intended to be a sacrifice.”
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/section_ii1.htm#Chapter 8

Further proof that the Mass cannot be a sacrifice for sin because (it is claimed) to be a bloodless sacrifice:- Leviticus says “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” In Old Testament times, only blood could make atonment for the soul. That was the same when Christ came. Only Christ could and did make a complete atonement for souls. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22

Lynne,
“just choosey what “manure” I’m being fertilized with”
Great pun Lynne!!! LOL.. Could there be some truth in it? :)

Wayne, It’s funny that as protestant you feel you know the source of the problem.  If I could counter your thoughts….  Men are not asked to suppress their natural desires.  They are expected to receive grace and that grace removes the desire or at least keeps it at a very manageable level. Their hearts are set on things above.  Have you ever had God grant you grace?  It is talked about by St. Francis’ brothers.  When you receive a grace to overcome a temptation, the temptation loses its appeal.  It’s a spiritual truth.  If we pray to overcome something and we have faith God hears us.  Priests are giving their lives totally to God.  They spend many years in formation. The priests today are so busy, I would guess for most what they dream about is sleeping in, not sex.  I am surprised you offer an opinion about confession since you have probably never been to confession and experienced what a grace it really is.  I have never been a fan of the new open confessional where you sit facing the priest and think it was better when the priest was in a center stall and the penitants were kneeling in their own stall. It eliminates any concerns caused by overactive imaginations.  Still people go there for a sacrament.  They still have a choice to kneel behind a screen.  If someone were to act inappropriately the priest has been educated to recognize temptation and should nip it in the bud.  Can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can’t prevent temptation from being part of life. Finally, I am not advocating blind trust,but Christian love. Priests aren’t deprived of the love of a woman. They should be receiving love from most of the parishioners they interact with. They should get their share of hugs after Mass and throughout the day.  “Greet one another with a holy kiss.”  What you are concerned about is really a poverty.  People don’t have to have sex.  But they have to be loved.  Our world is not so kind, not so warm, not so supportive of faith and it is these losses that lead to acting out sexually for professed religious.  Our love has grown cold. That is the real root of the problem.

Wayne, How does Boettner say it’s a bloodless sacrifice when the wine is Jesus’ blood? Jesus died once, but the Mass brings us to the foot of the cross.  We are part of that crowd for whom He says, “Father forgive them. They know not what they do.” We are divinized by His coming to us in the Eucharist.  Whether or not Old Testament Jews drank the blood of sacrifice, Jesus created a new command. He did alot of things Old Testament Jews would never do, like cure on the Sabbath, but no one struggles with that.  He said His body was real food and His blood real drink.  He commanded us to say the Blessing, break the bread and eat it and drink the wine and that it was His body and His blood. And it is a MYSTERY.  We know through faith that He is truly present.  Many Catholics have experienced His real presence in adoration before the Sacred Host or in receiving Him.  Our reality affirms His words! Perhaps that is a major difference between many Protestants and Catholics, the ability to accept mysteries on faith.

Pam,
“People don’t have to have sex.”
An interesting comment. I am just about to go out the door to attend a Sunday evening Bible study on Jacob. But I will reply to your comments later. Cheers.

mk, I must take issue with two of your statements.

First, you say that “God created the system” of Roman Catholic governance. Do you think that same God would be pleased with how those who hold authority in that system—and, ostensibly, in His name—have behaved now or through the centuries, especially concerning the clerical sex-abuse crisis?

God also created the “system” of sacrifice required by the Mosaic Law. Yet He never blanched from disciplining, if not rejecting outright, those in authority who abused their power and corrupted themselves. Read 1 Samuel 2:12-35, for starters. Read, also, Ezekiel 34. God’s prophets—including John the Baptist and Christ Himself—always confronted the corrupt religious authorities of their day, and of their own faith. Your rationale that “God created the system” is a cop-out.

Second, you take issue with those who oppose the liturgical response, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you…” You are right in saying that nobody is inherently worthy to be counted among God’s adopted sons and daughters. But Christ made us worthy through His atoning death on the cross. That liturgical response puts the focus on the congregation and not on God or His Son. I would love the Church to replace it with John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that those who believe will not perish but have eternal life.” If that’s not what the Eucharistic Celebration is about, then what’s the point?

Wayne,
You say that you are a bible Christian and that Scripture is your sole authority.  So I ask you to read the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper passages and you come back with some author I have never heard of. 

There were many sacrifices that were not bloody.  That’s the first point I will make.  The second is to confirm what was said above and that is that if we are re entering the crucifixion it would seem to me that there was plenty of blood, and that blood is on the altar of every mass, in the accident of wine.  I will also add that it is not, not, not a continuation of the crucifixion, but a re entering.  Unless you understand the concept of a Jewish Remembrance, you will not understand the concept of the Eucharist. 

You could think of it as “time travel” if that is easier.  We transcend time and are no longer in 2011 but back at calvary.  (Actually, we are in heaven for the Mass is heaven on earth.)

That moment in time is suspended forever and we can access it at anytime by partaking in the Mass.  The entire book of Revelation is about the Mass.  Hebrews is a detailed account of how the Mass replaces the Old Testament Sacrifices.  The Mass is NOT a new sacrifice.  It is the SAME sacrifice.  The Roman Catholic Church did not make anything up.  She is just following what Scripture teaches us.  Paul knew and believed this.  The early Church Fathers knew and believed this.  Even your statement that Rome made it up is off base, as the Roman Church is just a specific RITE in the Church.  EVERY Rite has the Mass.  The Byzantine, the Chaldean…You are familiar with the Roman Rite because you live in the west, but the Roman Catholic Church is the THE CHURCH.  The Pope sits in Rome yes, but the Catholic Church includes more than just the Roman Rite.

Joseph,

First, you say that “God created the system” of Roman Catholic governance.

I don’t believe I have said any such thing.  As a matter of fact I have gone out of my way to make it clear that there are a number of different “Rites” within the Catholic Church, and the Roman or Latin is just one of them.

Do you think that same God would be pleased with how those who hold authority in that system—and, ostensibly, in His name—have behaved now or through the centuries, especially concerning the clerical sex-abuse crisis?

Do you ask the same question about ALL Christians?  Do you judge all of Christianity based on the few who represent it poorly?  Do you know that the Church actually has a smaller incidence of sexual abuse than the world at large?  Are you insinuating that the Protestant churches are perfect and none of it’s members has ever committed a sin, or sexually abused a child?

I think God was well aware of the fact that the members of His Church would be flawed.  If He wasn’t aware of the fact that men were sinners He wouldn’t have hung on that cross, would he?  This is why He sent the Holy Spirit to the Church…this is the meaning of the words “The gates of Hell shall not prevail”...He didn’t say “I’ll send the Holy Spirit so that nothing bad ever happens to my Church…”  He sent the Holy Spirit so that when Satan attacked, the Church would be protected and SURVIVE the attacks.  He never, ever promised that she wouldn’t be attacked.

Yet He never blanched from disciplining, if not rejecting outright, those in authority who abused their power and corrupted themselves.

And He won’t blanch now either.  Would you be happier if their punishment was more immediate?  I’m pretty okay with unrepentant sinners spending eternity in hell.  Aren’t you?  Do you prefer lightening strikes and floods?  The Church is still here, in spite of everything that has been done to her from without and within.  That alone tells me that God is working through her.  No other organization could have survived the types of attacks that the Church has endured, without divine intervention.

Your rationale that “God created the system” is a cop-out.

You can take that up with God, Paul and the Early Church Fathers when you see them, because they all believe(d) it.  Jesus instituted the Eucharist.  He could have made it clearer.  You’re not the first person who found Christ’s words to hard to accept.  A lot of people walked away from Him that day because they couldn’t handle what He was saying.  “This IS my Body, This IS my Blood”...

I keep saying it, read the Bread of Life Discourse, watch the reaction of the people who heard it.  You are like one of the Jews who said No Way…this is crazy talk.  The Church is like Peter who said “Lord, where else would we go?  You have the words of eternal life”.

As I said earlier, you guys focus on the Words, while we focus on the Word, the Man Himself.  The WordS are important, but they cannot compare to the Man in the Flesh.

Responding to heavy media scrutiny, the Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 “credible accusations” have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, should be making front page of The New York Times and the network evening news. It’s not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Joseph,
“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you…”

Those words are straight out of Scripture. 

And the centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.  Matthew 8:8

We say those words just before we accept Jesus, in the Flesh, into our bodies (under our roof).  I don’t think it’s that far of a stretch to say that none of us are good enough human beings, worthy of Jesus Himself to enter our homes.  You better believe that if Jesus was coming to dinner, I’d scrub my house to a shine, and the first words out of my mouth when I opened the door would be, Come in Jesus.  It’s not much, but it’s my home and you are welcome in it.  It’s all about humility and gratefulness.  On my own I am NOT worthy, but I can be made so through the Grace of Our Lord.

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

MK,
You are prolific writer and debater but I don’t think I could possibly keep up with you. But I think it boils down to this. You accept Rome’s interpetation that John ch6 is to be taken literally. I don’t accept it is meant literally. Jesus said in verse 63 his words were spiritual. The whole chapter is referring to believing in Jesus in order to receive eternal life, not eating Him physically to receive eternal life. Which is it? Are there two ways to receive eternal life? One by believing in Him and one by eating His flesh and blood literally? Jesus was speaking metaphorically as He sometimes did. Jesus also said “I am the door” John ch10:9 What was He speaking about when He said the door? Was it salvation by faith in Him? By believing in Jesus? Jesus also said “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11:25,26 Again Jesus is speaking about faith as the way to eternal life. Eating and drinking His flesh and blood is simply a metaphorical way of believing in Jesus. He only taught one way of receiving eternal life. Jesus also said “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.” John 15:1 We don’t take that literally and believe Jesus was a “vine”; why would you take John ch6 literally and believe Jesus meant you had to physically eat and drink His flesh and blood?

MK, Pam,
MK says “That moment in time is suspended forever and we can access it at anytime by partaking in the Mass.”
You don’t enter into the cruxification. That is a lot of hokus pokus. Nobody can turn Christ’s sacrifice into some kind of re-enactment which people participate in in order to receive a benefit from God. It becomes some kind of great showy pageant where men are claiming to re-enact what God has already done, finished, completed. It makes a mockery out of it and is blasphemous. If you would take the time to study Hebrews you would see that Christ’s sacrifice was a one time occurence, never to be repeated. There is a great danger in continuing to believe that the Mass is a sacrifice. Isn’t this a denial of Christ’s once for all time sacrifice on the cross? Isn’t it saying Christ did not do enough already. Isn’t it say we need to do something more to make it effective? Isn’t this a denial of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice already completed?

Pam,
“Wayne, How does Boettner say it’s a bloodless sacrifice when the wine is Jesus’ blood? Jesus died once, but the Mass brings us to the foot of the cross.  We are part of that crowd for whom He says, “Father forgive them. They know not what they do.” We are divinized by His coming to us in the Eucharist.”
The Mass is an invention of men. It is not taught in Scripture. It does not bring you to the foot of the cross because it is a denial that Christ’s one time sacrifice on the cross was sufficient. I would avoid it like the plague. Read Hebrews and simply believe that Christ died on the cross for your sins and is your Saviour.  Get away from this hokus pokus as fast as you can. I do not believe God has any part in it because it is not authorized in Scripture. Nobody can add to or participate in what Christ did on the cross. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews ch9 vs12 “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;” Hebrews ch10 vs11, 12.

Mk posts:  “It’s all about humility and gratefulness.”  (Readers have seen none).  “On my own I am NOT worthy,”  (While continuing to elevate self),  “but I can be made so through the Grace of Our Lord.”  (Your current disposition provides no evidence).

Wayne,

The whole chapter is referring to believing in Jesus in order to receive eternal life, not eating Him physically to receive eternal life.

I beg to differ. How many times does Jesus mention the spiritual vs the physical?  Once.  How many times does He say that you must EAT HIM.  And He adds TRULY, TRULY, which being familiar with Scripture, you must know means “This is NOT an allegory, but TRUE!).  What do the Jews question?  That He is speaking of Spiritual Things?  No.  They question His statement that they are to EAT HIM. 

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?...For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Verse 63 is telling us that this Bread, which is Jesus’ Body is a Bread that feeds the Spirit, not the Body.  He is not saying that it is merely bread.  He is saying exactly the opposite.  Human bread feeds the body and must be eaten often if you want to live.  But this Bread, which will be my ACTUAL BODY, is eaten to feed the Spirit!

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.

The bread of the flesh is of no avai…But THIS bread, because it is ME, actually ME in the FLESH, THIS bread will give you eternal life because it feeds the soul, NOT the Body….

Think about it.  You glom on to that one sentence, which doesn’t even make sense the way you interpret it, given everything that was said before it.  Then couple this passage with the Last Supper and Paul passage about receiving the Bread worthily….there is no way that Jesus was simply talking about believing.  The question is “Believing What?”.  Believing that Jesus would take the form of Bread, that it would be His true Flesh and that we were to EAT IT, just as the Jews ATE the Pascal Lamb on that long ago Passover.  Passover was a “type” for the Eucharist. 

Seriously, throw away your preconceptions and everything you have been taught, and read those passages as if you’d never read them before….you’ll see.

Why would anyone balk at eating imaginary bread?

Wayne,

Jesus also said “I am the door” John ch10:9 What was He speaking about when He said the door? Was it salvation by faith in Him? By believing in Jesus? Jesus also said “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die

First, Jesus says I am the door and no one questions Him because they KNOW He is speaking metaphorically.  But this is not the case in the Bread of Life discourse.  He repeats OVER AND OVER, I really and truly AM Bread and you really and truly must EAT ME.  As for the Resurrection and the Life…that is not a metaphor.  He IS the Resurrection and He IS Life, just as He IS Love.  If you believe that whoever believes in Him shall never die because it says so in Scripture, then why don’t you also believe Him when He says He is the Bread of Life that came down from heaven.

On what grounds do you make the judgement that He is speaking metaphorically?  When He says He is the door (personally, I don’t think it is metaphorical to say that He is the doorWAY to eternal life, He is) does He then proceed to carry a door around with Him, asking His apostles to enter it?  Does He have them all gather around an actual door and bless it saying, “Take, open and walk through”?  No.  But He does Bless bread and wine and say Take this, eat of it, for THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD.  Does Paul then carry around a door and admonish the disciples for walking through the door unworthily?  No, of course not.  Because the DOOR was a metaphor.  But Paul and all of the apostles and disciples and followers, to this day, DO break bread, bless it and believe that they are consuming Our Lord.  Paul, the Early Church Fathers and I…all of us believed what Jesus said, even tho it was hard to do.  But you are like the disciples who said “This we cannot accept.  It is too hard.  Too outrageous”  and then walked away.  Is God not able to make Himself into bread?  Into wine?  He was able to make Himself into Man, wasn’t He?  Why should becoming Food for our Souls be so hard to accept?

Wayne,

If you would take the time to study Hebrews you would see that Christ’s sacrifice was a one time occurence, never to be repeated. There is a great danger in continuing to believe that the Mass is a sacrifice. Isn’t this a denial of Christ’s once for all time sacrifice on the cross? Isn’t it saying Christ did not do enough already. Isn’t it say we need to do something more to make it effective? Isn’t this a denial of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice already completed?

I’m very familiar with Hebrews.  We actually believe that this book backs up what we are saying.  We could take it bit by bit if you’d like, but that would take a long time (trust me, I’ve done it with Cradle and TwelveOaks). 

Also, you continue to misunderstand what we are saying about the “sacrifice”.  You insist on saying that we are re enacting it, and we are not.  He died ONCE and ONLY ONCE.  He will never die again.  His sacrifice was a one time deal…We have never claimed anything else.  The passover was a one time deal also, yet the Jews re enter it every year.  They don’t do it over and over.  They “go back in time” to the original, ONLY, passover.  We do the same.  We are NOT, NOT, NOT re-crucifying Jesus.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  For you to continue to claim that we are re sacrificing Him is a misconception on your part.  It is not a misuse of His sacrifice on ours.  It’s very metaphysical and mystical by nature (It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.)

We are physical creatures.  God is spiritual.  He incarnated, stepped out of eternity and into time.  Where we live.  But He is not bound by time, nor does He exist IN time.  He transcends time.  If we try to bind God to the physical laws of this world, if we try to understand Him in OUR terms, then we will fail.  It is only when you think metaphysically…allow for the mystical…that you can truly understand the Eucharist and what we mean by transcending time and re entering the sacrifice.  You yourself said that we go to the foot of the cross.  You are saying the same thing.  You are saying that when you suffer with God, when you take your suffering to the cross and unite it to Him ON that Cross, that you are transcending time and re entering the moment of His crucifixion.  You are climbing up onto the cross WITH Him.  Not in a physical sense.  Our bodies cannot go back in time, or bring the past into the present, but our spirits can.

Because we are physical, not only did Jesus become man, but He also left Himself here for us in a physical manner.  The bread and wine.  God is here in the Holy SPIRIT, and God is here physically, in order to answer both of our natures…the spiritual and the physical.  While the Eucharist is greater than ordinary bread, by virtue of being physical beings, we still require ordinary food to live.  BOTH natures must be accounted for.  This is why we EAT the PHYSICAL Bread/Body.  Because we are nourishing our two natures…We are both physical and spiritual creatures, unlike the angels who are pure spirit or the animals which are pure physical…

Joseph,

You cannot claim that Catholicism is the most accurate expression of the Gospel and not criticize those priests and prelates who abuse the system for their own gain

But I do criticize them.  They make me sick.  But the OFFICE of the priesthood is not to blame.  Each man will face God one on one.  I criticize Obama every chance I get, but I don’t criticize the OFFICE of presidency.  I criticize certain teachers but I don’t criticize “Teaching”. 

God and His Son demand repentence, not lip service!

And yet you ask me to give lip service to their discretions?  What good does it do anyone to go on and on…I pray for them, I acknowledge their wrong doing and I hope that we will be more careful about who we put into positions of authority in the future.  What do you want me to do?  Abandon my church because it’s members are flawed?  Talk about a rat deserting the ship!  No way!  I’ll stand by my church, flaws and all, because in the end it holds the TRUTH.  Did you become a Christian IN SPITE of Judas’ betrayal?  Do you acknowledge his sin?  Do you dwell on it?  Did you throw out Christianity because one of the apostles was no good? 

God also believes in Justice and I trust that HE, not I, will deal with those priests and bishops when the time comes.

WayneM, in your comments about celibacy, you wrote on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 5:16 PM: “Can anyone play with fire and not be burned? Can anybody be suprised what the outcome in many cases would be?

Cradle’s reply-
I say no.  Most recently, I was saddened & shocked when a well-known priest, a champion in Pro-Life issues, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, was yanked out of his ministry by his bishop, after he admitted to inappropriate behavior with a woman who’d been seeing him for exorcisms.  I’d seen Fr. E speak in person at a Family Values conference last Summer.  He was wonderful.  The good news about this is that he’s most likely not homosexual.  But what was done has had huge consequences in terms of being able to trust our clergy.  It does not have to be like that.  Was it Pam that suggested I find a holy priest, and speak with him?  At that conference, Fr. E sounded terrific.  Now this.

For the record, another well=known priest, Fr. John Corapi, has been accused of similar offense.  *BUT* there is something in my gut that tells me his case is different.  I know nothing about Fr. John except for what’s been in newspapers.  But how I wish EWTN and other official Catholic sources would have gone to bat for him, prior to allowing his name to be ruined.

Also Posted by WayneM on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 6:25 PM (EDT): “The problems related to sexual abuse seem to me to be more likely caused by the system of celibacy, the confessional, and blind trust rather than the type of individuals coming into the priesthood. Could this all be traced back to a misinterpretation of the Bible far back in history?”

Cradle’s reply- Yes to all.  It’s my belief that misunderstandings arose when the Church Fathers opinions were placed *over* what we learn in the Bible.  It’s the Bible-AND.  For me, it’s the Bible, period.  If others shed light on the Bible, as is, great.  But when they differ from it, the Bible is the Gold Standard of Measure, and the only trustworthy source.

WayneM, I’ve given a lot of thought to the re entering that moment on the cross, for Catholic Communion.  It seems to me that the Mass, our Sunday worship, is meant for already saved believers.  But to enter into Calvary is like we are NOT yet saved.  So the idea of it being perpetual, at Mass at least, just doesn’t make sense to me now.  Frankly, I did believe it before - because that’s what I was taught.  I never thought about it much before - I just accepted it.  Thanks for your thoughts, Wayne.

God and His Son demand repentence, not lip service!

Personal worthiness ceases to be an issue for those who have embraced Christ’s atoning sacrifice as their own. St. Paul himself said, “there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, personal worthiness is irrelevant; it’s Christ’s worthiness that makes us worthy!

Catholics and Protestants have very, very different views on this.  You believe that grace is imputed and we believe in infusion.  You believe that our sins are covered up and that we ride on Jesus’ laurels.  In essence, that we are stamped “approved”.  We don’t.  We believe our sins are actually taken away, first at baptism and then in confession.  So at any given time, we are NOT worthy.  We still sin.  When we say we are not worthy, we then ask that if God grants us forgiveness, we will be made worthy.  It’s a very humbling moment. 

You believe that no matter how much we sin after our proclamation that we “Believe” we are still worthy, because Jesus is worthy and we sort of ride on His coattails.  But we believe first, we are born with original sin, and that at baptism we are INFUSED with the Holy Spirit.  That Holy Spirit is there for us, part of us, we are “GRACED”, but that we can and will sin again.  Not inherited sin (original sin) but personal sin.  Sin damages our relationship with God and we must ask forgiveness to return to a State of Grace.  If the sin is grave enough, we go to confession.  If it is a less serious sin, then we simply ask forgiveness. 

At the Eucharist, we are about to ask Jesus to enter our “house” and we know, that like the gentiles, we are not worthy.  We are defiled.  We have sin.  So we ask Jesus us forgive us, to “heal” us.  Then we are clean again, and our “homes/bodies” are worthy of Him. 

I know that’s a lot to take in, and I’m sure you have a 1,000 objections and 500 questions.  But that’s a quickie version of why we say what we say and why it is perfectly scriptural and in context.

It seems to me that the Mass, our Sunday worship, is meant for already saved believers.  But to enter into Calvary is like we are NOT yet saved.  So the idea of it being perpetual, at Mass at least, just doesn’t make sense to me now.

And therein lies the problem. The idea that the TRUTH is whatever makes sense to me is pride speaking.  If it is Truth, it does not change.  Sometimes you will understand, sometimes you won’t.  This is the danger of reading and interpreting scripture for yourself.  You end up making yourself the sole authority on what Scripture is saying.  If it “feels” right, or “makes sense”.  But that makes YOU, not GOD the one who decides.  You can basically interpret Scripture to mean anything that you want, and sadly that is often what happens.  This is why there are so many different Protestant denominations.  Scripture has a meaning.  Sometimes we will get it right, sometimes we will get it wrong.  God knew this.  That’s why He chose an apostle to lead the Church, to be the visible authority.  And as all ministers of affairs did when they held the keys of authority, he passed them on after he died.  Jesus knew what He was doing, and He surely foresaw this “I interpret Scripture and therefore Scripture means what I say it means” dilemma.  This is the same disease that plagues our world today.  Relativism.  If it is true for me, then it is true.  If it is false for you, then it is false.  If you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one.  But I believe differently.  So what is true for me, may not be true for you.

But that is not how Truth works.  By definition.  If you are interested in the Truth, then you keep your mind and heart open.  If you are interested in being right, then you close your mind and believe whatever makes sense to you.  But don’t call it Truth.  Call it your opinion.

Joseph,

I’m not dodging the question or puffing out my chest…I wish…lol.

No, I think I’m just not understanding what you’re asking me.  I thought you were saying that the priesthood,  not the priests are the problem (actually, I still think your saying that) and that I am saying the priests are the problem and not the priesthood.  Apparently I’m wrong.  So what are you saying?

Joseph,

The problem is a governing structure that enables and encourages attitudes of entitlement and arrogance, and mitigates against any attempts at accountability. Yes, the problem is also the sinful priests and bishops involved.

Isn’t that like saying the Presidency/Congress, Police Force, Judicial system, you name it is a governing structure that enables and encourages attitudes of entitlement and arrogance etc, etc, etc….?

Of course, anytime there is a system of hierarchy there is a danger of corruption…but you don’t just eliminate the system.  The Catholic Church has managed to self correct for 2,000 years.  I imagine she’ll continue to do so.  I’m sure God was well aware of the dangers when He put the system into place.  However, as I’ve said, there is nothing so wrong with the Catholic Church that it cannot be fixed by what’s right with her. 

It may have taken longer than it should have, but those priests WERE exposed, weren’t they?  I brought up the Protestant Church because it is not the same system as ours, and yet you still have the same problems.  These are problems inherent to human nature.  They aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.  This is WHY the Holy Spirit was sent to protect the Church.  Not from corruption, but from annihilation.  To keep that corruption from within and without from destroying her.

They puff their chests out when it comes to how great their faith is, yet hide in rhetorical bunkers and obfuscated like crazy when confronted with evidence of either moral or intellectual malfeasance.

That statement couldn’t be less true…at the same time I have been on this thread, I have also been arguing on another, with atheists.  And I spent a great deal of time discussing this very thing.  You can read what I said if you want, and then if you still think I’m hiding behind the altar, let me know.

Just go to this link, scroll down and read my comments.  (Warning, there’s a lot of them)....

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-catholics-guide-to-atheists/

mk…“puffery” is the domain of boasters. I deliberately followed this blog as I found quite by accident another whom I have sparred before.
You last sentence more than all the other blather, respectively stated, all chat is that, “Call it your opinion” is the conclusion I made with my faith decades ago, and consider my self well read and educated. These impostors, anyone espousing other than Catholic, am I wrong? are such as akin to the Chick cartoons, and his notorious antitheses to our faith, or the one which I have cherished, for those same decades. The opinion I have embraced needs to know of the salvation made available by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Knowing this, is all I need, that “final test” to which opinion, as death comes closer remains constant. I would be concerned with which values we had prior to the internet to make us all so smart in our search for salvation. Sic Transit Gloria

Joe,

I guess that some are imposters and some are sincere.  I just think that if it is Truth that you seek, you go where it takes you, not where you want it to be.  It’s because I don’t trust “my opinion” that I sought those who were better qualified than I to have those “opinions”.  This is because there’s were not opinions, but Truth, as given to them by God Himself.  Having never had a vision or been visited by an angel, nor have I met God in person, I felt it was best to go to those who had, and to whom that authority was directly given.  I don’t care much for opinions when it comes to the matter of my soul.  I will be satisfied with nothing but the Truth, and in all my searching I have discovered (not decided, not formed the opinion that, but discovered) that the Catholic Church holds that Truth.  I thank God every day that He found me in the gutter and believed my sorry *ss was worth savin’...There are no forks in the road.  I’ve been down more back alleys than I care to discuss, and I now know that there is one road…and I’m staying on it.  How do I know?  First because Jesus told us, and second because nowhere else can I sit with my Lover, just He and I, except in the Catholic Church.  I know where God IS.  Not in heaven, not in some remote other world, but right here, in the flesh, in every tabernacle in the world.

How anyone could choose a book over the real thing is beyond me.  But then, this is America, and they are entitled to their opinions.

Cradle,
Good to see you. I thought maybe you had abondoned this page as I hadn’t seen you for a couple of days. You mentioned “WayneM, I’ve given a lot of thought to the re entering that moment on the cross, for Catholic Communion.”
I have an older RC catechism called Baltimore Catechism No.2 in which it says: On the Ends for which the Holy Eucharist was Instituted:
Q.251. Why did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist? Ans. 6. To continue the sacrifice of the Cross in His Church.
As I said to MK this morning, nobody can do anything to “continue the sacrifice of the Cross”. This spectacle is a scam. Millions, or rather hundreds of millions of people have been led to believe this is what Christ instituted. Christ’s once for all sacrifice of the cross was completed 2000 years ago and there is nothing anybody can do to “enter into it”, add to it, “continue it” or anything else except believe that Christ did it for those who believe in Him as Saviour. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Hebrews 10:18 Again “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear, the second time without sin unto salvation.” Hebrews 9:28

MK,

MK says “I know where God IS.  Not in heaven, not in some remote other world, but right here, in the flesh, in every tabernacle in the world.”
That is not what the Bible says. “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:” Hebrews 9:24
Poor souls think men can call God down to take up residence in a host and then put him in a little box or a golden bowl and carry him about dispensing him at will. That is limiting God, which the Scriptures do not allow for. Jesus’ physical body ascended into heaven after the resurrection, where he is at the right hand of God to intercede on behalf of His people. “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” Acts ch17:24,25.

WayneM- Thank you for your post.  I agree w/ *all* you wrote, not because it’s how I interpret Scripture, or because it’s my opinion, but it’s just what the Bible says.  It’s so simple.  What you wrote describes Paul’s 13 New Testament letters, and Roman’s doctrine.
 

Jesus made His perfect sacrifice, once for all the sins of the world. God the Father accepted His sacrifice on our behalf (those of us that accept the free gift, having been called by the Father, drawn by the Holy Spirit & given to Jesus) the veil was torn, top to bottom & when Jesus was resurrected, He was the first born, from the dead.  Jesus said, “It is finished”.  I believe Him.  I can’t say, “Jesus, no it is NOT finished.”

Back tomorrow - I’ve given the perpetual sacrifice tons of thought, for months now.  And it just does not square with the Bible, although this WAS what I was taught.  Some times, an old dog CAN be taught something new, when we search the Scriptures to see if it squares w/ what we were taught.

WayneM, great plaudits on the Catechism, I endorse most all you say but see much different than you, does not necessarily make us antagonistic, just approaching the new Christian, very American, and very much into interpenetration. I agree with mk best, as belief in Jesus Christ I am as secure as you whom I consider the “real deal.” Sic Transit Gloria

Wayne,

This spectacle is a scam.

Do you think Paul was scammed?  John?

I wonder Wayne, do you pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit before you come on here? Do you ask Him to open your heart to the Truth, or do you just come on thinking you already know everything there is to know.  You’ve probably been told since you were a small boy, that Catholics are bad and what they believe is wrong.  You have a wall built up, and even if God wanted to get through to you, you wouldn’t let Him.

Forget about Cradle and agreeing with her on everything.  Forget about everything you believe.  Open your heart, ask God to tell you if anything I am saying is True, if it’s what He wants you to know…

Then read the John 6 again, and the last supper passages.  Read what Paul says about receiving Jesus worthily.  Read about the Passover in Exodus…Pray first…and let God speak to your heart.  Because right now you are like a closed fist. 

I have opened myself and for awhile I walked as a Protestant.  But God continued to call me, further in and higher up.  I never stopped listening.  I let HIM direct me, I didn’t try to direct Him. 

But you seem so busy hating us and what you think we believe that you’re not hearing what God is saying to you…If we are wrong, then what harm is there in it….God will tell you we’re wrong.  I’m not afraid to read about or listen to anyone speak about their faith.  Their faith is no threat to me.  Is the Catholic Faith a threat to you somehow?  If so, then maybe you need to let go of that fear.  If there is no Truth in what I say, then you have nothing to lose.  But if I am right, and God is trying to speak to you right now, and you are not listening due to fear or pride…well, you need to think about that.

To WayneM and those who think like he does, there is a reality that disputes your position. People who pray in Eucharistic adoration experience the true presence.  The Church has recognized places where the bread actually turned to flesh and dripped blood which has been tested and has human dna. Look up Eucharistic miracles.  He IS truly present. So many have experienced it.
The Mass is not a show. It is a prayer. Wayne, in the Bible it also says God will return to be with His people like He was in the temple in Jerusalem.  And that is what He has done, being present in the Eucharist.  If you are not open to the truth you can not find it.  Why don’t you just ask to know the truth and go into a Catholic Church for a month and see what happens. The Catholic Church doesn’t dispute that Christ died once for all so there is no disagreement.  But in that dying He gave us His body and blood. The poor souls are the ones that ignore Him there.  He is God. MK may have limited Him since He is everywhere, but He is present in a miraculous way, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.  The quotes you use to support your arguments are taken out of context and don’t mean Jesus is not in the Tabernacle.  “I will be with you always, even unto the end of time.”

From the Didache:The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”</B>

Were they wrong too?  Bamboozled?

How about Clement of Rome: 80AD

<blockquote>

  “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

  “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Was he hoodwinked also?

Here’s a link…read what they ALL had to say…then tell me about the millions of people who have been fooled for 2,000 years and explain to me why Martin Luther suddenly knew what Jesus had said 1,500 years before he was born.  What magical powers did Luther have that the apostles didn’t?  Or the first Christians who risked their lives to share the Eucharist…

Were these guys reading a different book than you?  How is it that men who knew the apostles personally believed in the True Presence, but you Wayne, in the year 2011 know better?  Who am I going to trust?  You?  Or them?

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

MK may have limited Him since He is everywhere, but He is present in a miraculous way, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.  The quotes you use to support your arguments are taken out of context and don’t mean Jesus is not in the Tabernacle.

Indeed He is everywhere.  He is present to us in no less than four ways at every Mass.  Where two or more are gathered in His name…He is there.  When the priest speaks in Persona Christi…He is there…in the Holy Scripture….He is there.  I don’t limit His presence.  I am merely saying that in this one instance, unlike all of the other instances where He is present, He is present in a singularly unique way…IN THE FLESH.

Was He limited when He became a naked child, born in a cave?  Was He limited when He allowed Himself to be beaten and humiliated?  Was He limited when He cried tears of blood in the garden of Gethsemane?  I am not the one limiting Him.  I say He can do anything.  He can become a tiny, helpless child.  He can become a man hung on a cross. And He can become a piece of bread and feed His sheep.  You are the ones that limit Him when you say it “Can’t be Done”.  Nothing is impossible with God.

A very fine Bible commentary written by Matthew Henry says this about John ch6 vs52-59:
“The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls. Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh. Meditating upon the cross of Christ gives life to our repentance, love, and gratitude. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. We live by him, as the members by the head, the branches by the root: because he lives we shall live also.”
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-concise/john/6.html
Please notice Matthew Henry understands eating this flesh and drinking this blood means believing in Christ. Not literally eating His flesh and blood, which are in heaven. Christ wants us to know Him in a personal way as our redeemer. This nearness to Christ is not something that only happens periodically in a communion service, but this is continual as He is with those who believe on Him as redeemer. That means believing what the Bible says about Christ, that He died and shed His blood for the believer personally and that there is no more atonement for sin. It is complete. It is not something which is dispensed by a minister in a church service; otherwise, where would Christ be for the believer the rest of the time. No, it has to be permanent, as a Father to a son or daughter is permanent.
“Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” Isaiah ch66 vs1,2. May God be with you as you seek to know him.

Wayne,

Well that’s it then.  I ask you to open yourself up.  To just for a moment, forget about everything that you’ve been told.  To do what you claim you love to do…read scripture, with an open heart and let God speak to you…

Instead you give me someone elses words.

I can only assume that you are more interested in remaining comfortable, than in discovering the Truth.  If someone were to come to me, claiming they had the Truth, while I might be skeptical, I would listen.  Because that is my goal.  To find Truth, wherever it lies.  I thought you were also a Truthseeker.  If you had read John 6, the Last Supper passages and The Passover story, after praying for guidance, and still thought that I was wrong, I would have respected that.  But instead you remained closed, convinced that you already had the Truth and did not even give God a chance…I have posted many things here, and you have responded to virtually none of them. 

I would repeat the words “May God be with you as you seek to know him. ” but I don’t really believe that you want to “know Him”.  I have no doubt that you love Him, but know Him?  No.  You don’t know Him.  He has made it clear what He wants from us.  It’s so simple.  We are called to obedience.  We are called to be Holy.  We are called to the altar to meet Him in the flesh.  I’m so sorry that you wouldn’t even give that Truth a chance.  Perhaps, someday…until then, God Bless you and keep you.

Hey, I’m back for a little while. I have asked several questions, but no one answers them. Okay, here’s another question: Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should be led, in seeking salvation, only by their interpretations in the Bible? Will you dare answer?

Why is the Catholic Church’s Holy Eucharist literally not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Yes, the Holy Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in another form, in the form of bread. Believe it or not. If God can change bread into human beings, as he does everyday, then, why can’t God change bread into His Body and still continue looking like bread? I say that God can do this. Let me tell you a little story of many about the Holy Eucharist. I once had a non-Protestant friend, a former Baptist minister, who studied the Holy Catholic Church. He told me that he came to believe everything about the Holy Catholic Church except the part of the Catholic Holy Eucharist. But notice what happened. This minister humbled himself like a child, got on his knees, and said this to God: “Lord, you will have to show me because I cannot believe that the Catholic Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ. Lord, you will have to show me.” Keep in mind that this minister humbled himself like a little child. Was it not Jesus Who said that “unless you become as humble as a little child, you will not enter the Kingdom of God”? Yes, that’s exactly what Jesus said. And Jesus means that. Okay, now back to the story: Because this Baptist minister beiieved in the Catholic Church minus the part about the Holy Eucharist, this minister attended the Catholic Church the following Sunday. He sat down. When he sat down, a dazzling beam came from the tabernacle where Jesus resided, and blinded this poor, humble man. He was apprehensive, but he did not move. He remained sitted. About five minutes later, to his amazement, he regained his sight. Of course he was happy. However, he did not understand why he was blinded. About this time, the Catholic Mass began. When the priest had gotten to the point when the priest says “This is my Body,” again a dazzling beam of light came, but directly from the Holy Eucharist, and blinded the poor, humble man. Again, he sat there for a couple of minutes and wondered. Suddenly he got the message: “That’s it, that’s it, that’s the miracle that I was asking for.” From then on the humble man believed that the Catholic Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I’ve mentioned in the past that many miracles, actually dozens, have come through my intercession. But I will not elaborate. One miracle that happened through my intercession, which is still present in Central America, would blow your brains away, but I will not elaborate. This miracle has converted thousands of people, and it is still there. So it’s very easy for me to believe the wonders of God. I’ve said before, become as humble as a little child and God Who truly loves us will do great wonders if especially they are needed. BELIEVE IT OR NOT. May God bless you. Incidentally I pray seriously about four hours dail. I pray at least 10 Holy Rosaries daily. May God bless you again.

Sorry about that. I meant to say seated and not sitted. Thank you.

Joseph…I cannot opine on what the Pope knows or doesn’t. I think the scandal of the pedophile priest overshadows the priest which brushed up or blatantly broke his vows with a woman, and does most to damage an otherwise admirable calling. There is belief in Catholicism, strange word faith, that from evil comes good, so moving forward I pray that the ecclesiastic guffaws are handled expeditiously…I don’t know those Cardinals knew, like you I am sickened but like you I would suspect if there was convincing evidence of knowledge, someone would be livid and act appropriately, I believe we all harbor a lot of resentment, I think Vatican II allowed too much wiggle room in Catholicism, the effect has been disastrous. I chose not to become a priest as the rigors of abstinence I could not offer, she was too beautiful and I was too much at 21 in love, I decide I could not have two absolute loves in my life, yet I still believe

“But when a Church that claims to have the ‘fullness of the Gospel’ ignores the fundamental tenets of basic morality, than how can anybody take that claim seriously when its leaders obviously don’t”?  The answer to your question Joseph D’Hippolito is that human beings have a fallen nature. Didn’t Jesus Christ have the “fullness of the Gospel”? He did, but what happened? Judas Iscariot, ONE OF THE LEADERS, was an apostle, who didn’t take the “fullness of the Gospel” seriously. But, despite the failure of the leader Judas, does that mean that other members can’t, or shouldn’t, take the “fullness of the Gospel” seriously? Of course not. Despite the failure of Judas, I and many others can still take Jesus’ “fullness of the Gospel” seriously. But how? Could you believe that it’s on account of humility? Some people humble themselves. Others don’t.

MK,
“Wayne,

Well that’s it then.  I ask you to open yourself up.  To just for a moment, forget about everything that you’ve been told.  To do what you claim you love to do…read scripture, with an open heart and let God speak to you…

Instead you give me someone elses words.”

MK, Proverbs tells us to listen to the counsel of Godly teachers. “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.” Proverbs 15:22
“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14
Sola scriptura does not mean we do not listen to Godly teachers and counsellors. God gave us bible-believing ministers, teachers, and counsellors for a purpose. However, we don’t consider them as infallible. The principle of sola scriptura is that the truth spoken or written must be based on the Scriptures. It does not mean that nobody else can speak. Whatever is taught should be examined by Scripture to see if it be true. The apostle Paul commended the Berean christians because they searched the Scriptures daily, to verify what they were taught was true. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11
I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar or a trained minister. When I am dealing with difficult or contested interpretations, I freely admit I do consult the wisdom of learned bible scholars to see what they have to say and whether what they say is confirmed by Scripture. There is nothing wrong with this. The Scriptures make it clear what is taught must be in agreement with Scripture. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20
You somehow might have believed bible-believers (Protestants) throw all other books away and claim to read only the Bible. While there might be a few rare christians that do that, that is not what the Bible teaches christians must do. We are free to consult other God honouring counsellors and teachers, as long as we remember the Bible is the final and only infallible authority. We would look at the overall beliefs of the writer to see whether the person is a Bible-believing christian or whether he is in error in some way before considering him as a suitable aid.

MK,
If it is more palatable to you, I would be willing to speak with you using the Bible only. But I am not optimistic that you are sincerely willing to listen and accept anything I say from the Bible. I will have to give it some prayerful thought.

Pam, you wrote, “The Church has recognized places where the bread actually turned to flesh and dripped blood which has been tested and has human dna.”

Cradle’s reply-
I know.  I saw an exhibit that traveled all over the world and it troubled me, when I heard stories like what you wrote above.  There is nothing in New Testament Scripture that would uphold that happening, and in fact, there’s much in Scripture that would warn us against falling for it.  I take Communion very seriously.  But I do not take seriously at all, the stories like what is written above.  I hope that does not offend you- I don’t mean it to offend how you think, when you heard these stories.  But I was very troubled by it.  It takes away from the RISEN Jesus.

Going back to the Holy Eucharist of the Holy Catholic Church. “Oh ye of little faith.” Some on this site turn their backs on Jesus exactly like the Jews of old. They, too, turned their backs on Jesus Christ, “and walked with Him no more,” when they rejected the teachings of Jesus Christ on the Holy Eucharist. If I recall correctly, Jesus said, “this is my flesh, this is my blood” three times. But did some of the Jews believe? No. They questioned: “How can He give us His flesh to eat”? Understanding Jesus correctly, they even argued among themselves and questioned just as many so-called Christians are doing today. And so they, too, turn their backs (Matt 6:66) on Jesus and become antichristian on this position. Incidentally, the Holy Catholic Church has held the same position, on the Holy Eucharist, for almost 2,000 years. It has not changed or altered its meaning. The Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in another form. It’s up to you to believe or disbelieve. I believe because Jesus said so and because the Church that Jesus established says so, indefectibly and infallibly. I will never believe a heretical church that came many centuries later. That means that I’ll never believe fallible and indefectible interperters of sola scriptura.

Philip,
Jesus warned his listeners that miracles are not proof that people are of God. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in they name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descened, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.” Matthew ch7 vs22-25
Notice in the last two verses Jesus teaches that it is those who listen to Jesus which is God’s Word who are building their house (life) on a rock.  How does one know if a miracle is of God? Do you believe the devil has power to perform supernatural occurences in the world?  Are there some examples of that in the Old Testament?
What was Jesus talking about when he said:
“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matthew ch12 vs38-40 What do these verses mean?
Jesus also warned in the last days that false prophets would shew great signs and wonders. “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” Matthew ch24 vs23,24.

Cradle you trouble me because you bestow more power on yourself than the pope. The pope is infallible only when he is speaking on faith and morals, and when he is speaking to the whole church with the authority of the True Church. You think that somehow the Holy Spirit has bestowed infallibility and indefectibility on you to speak to everyone infallibly and indefectibly without any authority from anyone. Unless of course the Holy Spirit protects you from making mistakes on faith and morals, which I more than doubt. Well, does He? Do you hold the “keys to the Kingdom of God”? Believe it or not, but I believe that the successor of St. Peter holds those keys and NOT YOU. Because you are so stubborn, you won’t dare answer those questions. Friend, why don’t you give up? You’ll never convince me, or anyone else who can think logically and systematically.

WayneM, I’m applying the same questions to you that I applied to Cradle above. And to you Joseph D’Hippolito, you will always have corruption in the Church that Jesus Christ founded. It was that way from the very beginning. Believe it or not. However, despite the corruption in Jesus’ Church, the Catholic doctrine remains pure and without blemish. Sorry, but I’ll stick to the papacy and not to fallible and defectible Cradle, WayneM, and Joseph D’Hippolito. You don’t mind if I do that, do you? May God bless you. May God give you greater brain power, more understanding, more wisdom, more humility, more everything else that is good. Bye for now. I have other things to do.

Philip Saenz,
“And it was told him my certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” Luke ch8 vs20,21
Philip, why did Jesus say this if the Word of God was not meant to be read by ordinary people or believers? Why would Jesus expect ordinary people to read the Word of God if it was only meant for the church hierarchy to read and interpret for the people?

Philip Saenz,
“Sorry, but I’ll stick to the papacy and not to fallible and defectible Cradle, WayneM, and Joseph D’Hippolito. You don’t mind if I do that, do you?”
No, I don’t mind. You say we are fallible. I agree.  But what about yourself? Are you fallible? How do you know what you are believing is true? You are free to believe what you wish. Nobody can force you to believe anything.

Philip,
“May God give you greater brain power, more understanding, more wisdom, more humility, more everything else that is good. Bye for now. I have other things to do.”

I could always use more of those things. Thank you.

D’Hippolito, yes, I am infallible all that while when I am dipping down into the well of infallibility of the Holy Catholic Church and teaching its infallible doctrine. I do not rely entirely on my own intuitions, or lack of intelligence. If we can follow the pure and unblemished doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church totally, we could become great saints. We cannot become great saints by following errors, i.e., a fallible church with its fallible doctrine. Sola Scriptura will never give you an infallible doctrine no matter how hard stubborn people may try. Jesus Christ didn’t set it up that way. I’ll stick with the papacy, the way Jesus intended. P.S. If you want to convert people, follow the pure doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church and become a great saint. You cannot become a great saint by fretting over the failures of others. It simply isn’t the way to go. May God bless you.

Wayne,

MK, Proverbs tells us to listen to the counsel of Godly teachers. “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.” Proverbs 15:22
“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14

You picked a modern writer who hates the Catholic Church and put her “counsel” above that of St. Paul, The early Church Fathers and Jesus Himself.  You do the math.

Wayne,

You somehow might have believed bible-believers (Protestants) throw all other books away and claim to read only the Bible

No it doesn’t.  It tells you to hold fast to the traditions that the Apostles handed down.  I gave you quotes from the Didache, The Apostles Handbook…these are not folks who have a grudge against Luther, or Calvin…these are the guys that KNEW Jesus.  If it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.  I’ll see your Matthew Henry and raise you a Gospel of John and a St. Paul any day.

Joseph,

If He indeed gave “the keys of the kingdom” to the Catholic Church, its leaders will have much to answer for because of their apparent addiction to power, prestige and entitlement.

I believe I said as much several times.  This is why we don’t place our trust in men, but in God.  We know that it is God who leads the Church.  The Pope is only the visible head.  As I pointed out, when Jesus gave those keys to Peter, he promised that the gates of Hell would not PREVAIL.  He never promised that the gates of Hell would not attack.

So far, satan has managed to do a bang up job of attacking, (Luther not the least of the attacks) and yet satan has NOT prevailed.  That’s all I need to know.

Philip,

Cradle you trouble me

She troubles me too.  When you make statements like “We pay too much attention to the Eucharist and not enough to Scripture” alongside “I’ve given a lot of thought to the re entering that moment on the cross, for Catholic Communion.  It seems to me that the Mass, our Sunday worship, is meant for already saved believers.  But to enter into Calvary is like we are NOT yet saved.  So the idea of it being perpetual, at Mass at least, just doesn’t make sense to me now.  Frankly, I did believe it before - because that’s what I was taught.  I never thought about it much before - I just accepted it. ” and then 20 comments later says “I take Communion very seriously.”  it leaves me wondering just what the heck this poor confused woman actually believes.

Wayne,

MK,
If it is more palatable to you, I would be willing to speak with you using the Bible only. But I am not optimistic that you are sincerely willing to listen and accept anything I say from the Bible. I will have to give it some prayerful thought.

It’s not about what is palatable to me.  It’s about seeking the Truth.  You say you seek “Counsel” but do you consider the source?  I asked you to read Scripture, then read the Church Fathers and the Didache and instead you come back with someone else words as if you can’t think for yourself.  Not only do you not use your own words, but you use a source that clearly hates the Church.  Why is this Matthew Henry more qualified than the apostles, or John, or Paul?

Joseph,

<B>Stop making excuses and start fighting the corruption within! Otherwise, God will hold you, too, to account…. <?B>

That’s quite an assumption considering you don’t even know me.  How do you know that I DON’T do my best to fight the corruption?  How do you know that all the Catholics on here don’t?  As for excuses, I have not heard one excuse made for any of the corruption within the Church.  Not one.  I have heard many of us say that we KNOW it goes on, but that we trust God’s words when He said that it would not destroy the Church.

Philip, why did Jesus say this if the Word of God was not meant to be read by ordinary people or believers? Why would Jesus expect ordinary people to read the Word of God if it was only meant for the church hierarchy to read and interpret for the people?

I don’t know a Catholic in the world that would say we shouldn’t read Scripture, so I don’t know why you are asking that.  Of course we should read Scripture.  The entire Mass is Scripture.  I’ve been taking Scripture courses for 4 years now.  I read Scripture in the Adoration Chapel.  The Rosary is Scripture…

No, I don’t mind. You say we are fallible. I agree.  But what about yourself? Are you fallible? How do you know what you are believing is true?

Because God told us it is True.  God, not I or Philip or anyone else gave the Keys to Peter.  God, no I or Philip or anyone else instituted the Eucharist.  Every thing the Catholic Church teaches is Scripturally sound.  If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t believe it. 

These things aren’t True because the Catholic Church says it’s true.  The Catholic Church says they are True, because they ARE.  We don’t invent Truth.  We protect it and proclaim it.

An Mk Post//  “As I pointed out, when Jesus gave those keys to Peter, he promised that the gates of Hell would not PREVAIL.”  What are these keys?  How are they to be used?  Where are they now?

To Joseph D’Hippolito, that posted on Tuesday, Apr 5, 2011 3:54 PM “One more point, this time to all the Catholics on this thread:

Do you suppose the current problems that the Church is experiening are part of a divine scourging for the leaders’ collective arrogance, isolation and sense of entitlement?”

Cradle’s reply-
Yes, I do.  If only our church leaders would teach the whole Bible- as Pam correctly pointed out in an earlier post, the Old Testament is about Jesus, concealed, and the New Testament is about Jesus, revealed.  It’s all about Jesus. 

But I believe our Church has one foot in the Old Testament, as it applies to the Sacrificial Priesthood, where only clergymen work on the behalf of laypeople, as “mediators” to the Father, and by definition, it keeps Jesus on the Cross, instead of where He really is: Victoriously raised from the dead.

In the Bible, God revealed Himself to us.  Over and over in the Old Testament, He shows how He works, and Joseph, your observation is correct.  What you described is precisely how God worked in the Old Testament.  God is the same, yesterday, today and forever… His Children KNOW how He works.

God revealed Himself in order to communicate with His Creation, us, just as we all have a desire to communicate with our own loved ones, and with each other - even on this blog.  I am grateful to all of you, for making me THINK more about my faith.

I use the Bible as the only RELIABLE means that reveals God.  Any authorized Bible (be it Roman Catholic- I use the Catholic Youth Bible to write in, because it’s easy to read) and I also have a variety of other Bibles too, like the John MacArthur Study Bible, with notes to place the happenings of the Bible into its context.

God is the Author of the Bible - even the Vatican has said that the Bible is God-breathed, and He inspired the truths it contains.  It’s as if all 40 writers of the Bible were boats, being carried along on the sea, with God being the water and the wind, that moves them along.  Each boat would look different, maintaining its own personality, so to speak, just like the writers had their own personality, but it was God that supplied the inspiration of what they wrote.  Most importantly, the whole Bible was being led by One Source= God.  That’s why when I read the Bible, I just can’t see any contradictions.  I hear people say that, but there are none, when the WHOLE Word is read, in context.

What makes the Bible “living” even for us is that the Holy Spirit supplies to us His illumination on what we’re reading.  I know folks that have read the Bible 5 times, and they are senior citizens (some are fellow Born-Again Cradle Catholics) and they’ll say, “Wow!  I never saw that before!” - a case in point was at a recent Bible study, a 75 year old woman heard for the first time that while Jesus died for all the sins in the world, “many were saved”.  Not “All were saved.”  But many.

Interpretation is important.  This is where I must agree with the intent of the Reformers, including former Father Martin Luther.  The institutional church had veered off center, and just looking at secular history at the time shows us that our church was not being led by men of pristine character.  Then, and even now, I doubt many ordained men would even qualify as good elders, such as St. Paul described in his Pastoral Letters.

There is a price to pay, for accepting leaders that are not God-honoring.
All we need to do is to look at Old Testament accounts where a price was paid - does everyone remember what happened to the priest sons of Eli?  How about what happened to David’s helpers, when they were moving the ark back to Jerusalem, and they didn’t handle it properly?  God took them all out, and it actually frightened (and angered) David so much, he just left he ark sit in someone’s house for 3 months. Look at what happened to Aninias and Sapphira, when they showed poor judgment in the New Testament.  God acts.

We all have the benefit of the New Testament, in written form, in our own language, and we KNOW what God wants from us.  The Bible is clear and easy to understand.  We have no excuse for placing the writings of Church Fathers OVER the Bible’s truths, when there is a discrepancy in what is so clearly God’s intent.  Some church fathers changed their minds from their early days, to their later days, and they quite frequently disagreed with each other.  Take Origen, for instance.  He’s not “St. Origen” because he held some odd beliefs and he was vocal about it, beliefs that veered from what was held at the time.  Yet, Pope Benedict has been quoting Origen lately, giving him more credibility.

The problem as I see it is the age old saying, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  With so many non-Catholic Christians pointing out issues they have with the Catholic church, such as the bread that begins to bleed, and the statues of Mary that begin to cry, or the apparitions all over the world…none of which point to the RISEN Jesus, who is coming again - and who tells us to be vigilent and ready to meet Him….I believe Catholics ought to take note.  We should concentrate on matters of Eternal Value. 

Many Catholic continue to place child=like trust in the Magesterium, and our leaders have come to expect that trust, without having to earn it from us.  Those days are ending, and Joseph, I’m glad you know folks in Boston that are tiring of the idea of placing priests & bishops high on a platform, and reducing Jesus to the size of a wafer.

Everywhere in the Bible, when someone has seen God - such as Isaiah, or John, they fall flat on their faces, they worship, they realize their own SIN and their OWN unworthiness, and they are touched by God’s tenderness to them, His compassion, His mercy, His grace - and He reaches out and He lifts them up.  We cannot lift ourselves up.  We were dead in sin.  We were helpless, and hopeless, until He found us - He drew us, He called us, and we came.  Forgiven.  Justified.

What we are compelled to do, as a result, is to shout that Good News from the rooftops, to others that do not know.  Just like the wonderful Gospel reading last Sunday about the blind man that Jesus healed.  There was a moving presentation of it at my parish, where the pastor and 4 lay lectors read the account.  The man that spoke as the blind man did such a great job of reading it, that I could picture how BRAVE he was to say the truth about what he experienced.

And for his bravery, the Jewish leaders threw him out of the synagogue.  His parents feared being thrown out, and they let him do the speaking - but… Jesus found him, and Jesus showed even MORE compassion to him, and the man went from being just healed to being a believer.

We all need to speak truth - no matter the cost.  No matter if we are thrown out of our own little circles.  What gives US courage is to keep our noses in Scripture (Ephesians Chapter 6, The Armour) and to keep hanging around other believers, from where we get our strength.

Regarding the Jewish leaders in the Old Testament, and even the Jewish leaders that turned Jesus in to the Roman authorities, demanding He be crucified - we have our own Pharisees today, and some of them are in our church leadership.  Not much has changed.  What we need to do is to pray for discernment, in order to know good from bad.  God has revealed it to us, and through His Word.  How fortunate we are to have what He’s revealed, & it’s all right there. WayneM -Your verses are IDEAL. Thank you!

BlueSky,

Whenever a King would travel, he would leave his minister in charge.  He would literally give him the “keys” to the kingdom.  Everyone was expected to treat the minister as if he were the king, until the day the king returned.  This was common practice.  When Jesus gave the “Keys” to Peter, he and the apostles understood the symbolism.  He was putting Peter in charge until He returned.  If the minister died while the king was still away the keys got passed to the next in line…

Here is something I just found called the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery…

http://books.google.com/books?id=qjEYEjVVEosC&pg=PA476&lpg=PA476&dq=keys+to+the+kingdom+ancient+times&source=bl&ots=IsN0-3uPBW&sig=So3MfQP63D8aJAJrDRtDtcOIaTI&hl=en&ei=SZ2bTbzLMZCitgfy1ei0Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=keys to the kingdom ancient times&f=false

You might have to scroll down to the letter “K”....I just typed keys to the kingdom ancient times in google….

So right now, Pope Benedict has the “keys”.  Until he dies or the King returns.

BlueSky,

Also note that the same words are spoken in Isaiah 22:22.

  On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
  I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
  6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
23
  I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

The apostles would have recognized the words and understood exactly what Jesus was saying to Peter. 

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
  And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20

Matthew 16:17-20

Cradle,

It’s all well and good to point out that Origen had some issues.  But how do you know that?

Because his heresies were brought to light.  We don’t believe his heresies, now, do we?  No.  What we believe is what was passed not as NOT heretical, by the Fathers.  The reason (and I know you know this) they “disagreed” was because they were still working out what in the heck this Man named Jesus had left them with.  There was a lot of material, heavy material and it had to be sorted through.  Of course there were going to be disagreements.  And yet, the Church has PREVAILED.

Heretics were called to the carpet.  The Truth was retained, protected and passed on.  Heck, we’re still workin’ out some of the details.  The Church is not an institution.  She is a living, breathing work in progress.  She moves forward always and she is the Bride of Christ.  We are His Body.  Sometimes the Body gets sick.  Stuff happens.  But as promised, all illness is eventually healed. 

Wayne says that while the Bible is inerrant it is not the only source of Truth.  He says he reads commentaries and seeks help in understanding.  You on the other hand claim that the Bible is all you need.  Well, good luck with that.  You pretty much stand alone.  You neither stand with Protestants or Catholics.  I’d go so far as to say that you have your own little Church, with one sole member.  You.  And we see how that’s goin’ considering you contradict yourself in every post.  You take communion seriously, we’ve reduced the Lord to a wafer…which is it?  The thing is, we didn’t reduce Him to anything.  He reduced Himself.  First to a tiny, humble infant, then to a man who was beaten and ridiculed and now to bread to nourish.  God has given Himself to us. First on the cross, and now in the Eucharist.  In humbling Himself, He has shown us what great really means.  Great means to make oneself small, and to give oneself TOTALLY to another. This is what Jesus did, this is what we are called to do.  To REDUCE ourselves.  And then to GIVE ourselves.

I gotta throw in here, while I’m thinking of it…it has been mentioned more than once that Jesus “offered” Himself once and for all…

If you read Hebrews (with an open heart and mind) you understand that the word “offer(ing)” is used in two ways.  Jesus is AN offering, and Jesus OFFERS.  Each of these has a different and distinct meaning.  In order to understand the Mass, you must first understand these two very different terms.

Jesus was AN offering once.  He will never be AN offering again. He will never be killed again.  His death was a one time deal.  BUT, He continues to perpetually OFFER Himself.  Not perpetually die, but perpetually OFFER Himself.  This is how we can re enter the crucifixion.  Because the OFFER is ongoing.  For all time.

Here is what it says in Hebrews…

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered?

The Jews had to kill an object over and over…because, being an imperfect offering, it had to be done over and over.  But not so with Jesus.  He is perfect, so there had to be only one death.  Why did the Jews do it over and over?  They did it twice a day on Monday so that there sins would be forgiven on Monday.  But then they had to kill another beast on Tuesday, so that their sins would be forgiven on Tuesday….We have Jesus….His offering is good FOR ALL TIME because He was perfect.  One Body offered for ALL TIME.  Not many bodies offered up over and over.  The OFFERING (VERB) never ends, but the OFFERING (NOUN) was a one time deal.  He is OFFERING Himself right now.  But He doesn’t have to die to do it.  It’s perpetual.  Ongoing.  Good forever.  No expiration date.  No do overs.  The offer stands.  Still.  Today.  Now.  That is the Mass.  We don’t RE offer.  We enter into the perpetual OFFERING (VERB)...

MK,
“Wayne,

MK, Proverbs tells us to listen to the counsel of Godly teachers. “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.” Proverbs 15:22
“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14

You picked a modern writer who hates the Catholic Church and put her “counsel” above that of St. Paul, The early Church Fathers and Jesus Himself.  You do the math.”

No so. Please give one example of anything I have quoted or said that contradicts St. Paul or Jesus.

Wayne,

I already have.  I gave you the bread of Life discourse.  Jesus’ own words.  I gave you the passage from Matthew where Jesus gives the Keys to Peter.  I gave quotes from the Diache….this is the APOSTLES handbook.

You deny their words. 

Here is Paul telling us that we must receive the Eucharist worthily. 

1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

To say that the Eucharist is NOT the actual body and blood of Jesus is to call Paul and Jesus Himself, liars.  They say it.  And unlike the door or vine, they EAT IT AND DRINK IT.

Here Wayne…here is where you contradict Paul and Jesus…

Please notice Matthew Henry understands eating this flesh and drinking this blood means believing in Christ. Not literally eating His flesh and blood, which are in heaven. Christ wants us to know Him in a personal way as our redeemer. This nearness to Christ is not something that only happens periodically in a communion service, but this is continual as He is with those who believe on Him as redeemer. That means believing what the Bible says about Christ, that He died and shed His blood for the believer personally and that there is no more atonement for sin. It is complete. It is not something which is dispensed by a minister in a church service; otherwise, where would Christ be for the believer the rest of the time

Jesus says we ARE to eat His Body and Drink His Blood…LITERALLY.  He says it as plain as day. 

Here is the whole thing laid out from the OT to the NT with all the Scripture you could hope for…

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

This is what Jesus said, and you deny it.  You say he was speaking metaphorically and He says right there that He is emphatically NOT, NOT, NOT speaking metaphorically.  VERY TRULY I TELL YOU…For my flesh is REAL FOOD, and my blood is REAL drink.  How much clearer do you want it?

MK,
“That is the Mass.  We don’t RE offer”
The Baltimore Catechism no.2 says “The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.”
Since Christ has already offered himself and His sacrifice is completed, why is it necessary to even have a Mass? Isn’t Christ’s sacrifice on the cross 2000 years ago completely efficacious without the Mass?

MK,
I understand you believe John 6 is to be interpreted literally, but I cannot agree. Can you explain then if there are two ways of salvation, one by literally eating His flesh and blood and another way by believing in Christ? Jesus does say in many places in the gospel of John that those who believe in Him (as Saviour) have eternal life. How do you explain the fact in John ch6 Jesus says those who eat His flesh and blood will have everlasting life? (John 6:54) compare with John 6:47. How would you explain that?

Wayne,

First you acknowledge that He says both.  So both must be true.  If we are in disagreement, the fault must lie with our interpretation, not with Scripture.

Jesus does not say those who believe in Him (as Savior).  He says you must believe.  The question is believe what?  Of course we must believe that He is our Savior.  But where does it say that that is ALL we have to believe.  I think He means we have to believe EVERYTHING that He says.  To you, Faith simply means an intellectual assent that Jesus died and rose for us.  But to us Faith means that we accept all of the criteria laid out for our salvation.  We must be baptized.  He says so.  We must eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood if we want eternal life.  He says so.  UNLESS you eat…

The two things are not mutually exclusive.  You don’t believe in the Eucharist and not believe that Jesus died for our sins.  You don’t believe Jesus died for our sins OR believe in baptism.  You don’t believe in baptism but not the Eucharist.

You believe it all.  EVERYTHING that Jesus said is part of that “Faith” that you proclaim.  EVERYTHING.  You can’t pick and choose.  Yes, He says you must believe in Him to have eternal life.  But He also says you must be washed in water and the Spirit and he also says you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. 

I don’t know why you guys always make it either/or.  It all of it.  The word “Faith” just entails a whole lot more to us than it does to you.

We are saved by GRACE ALONE through Faith…we believe in EVERYTHING that He told us.

Wayne,

I’m off to bed now.  Do me a favor.  Can you do this?  Go the link I posted on the Scriptural references for the Eucharist.  Read them.  Just read them.  I’ll be back in the AM and look very forward to what you think.

Keep in mind what I said about the two meanings of OFFERING.  To offer/AN offering.  And read the link.  Please.  Pray before you do.  I’ll be praying also.

Lastly, remember, it doesn’t matter if I think John was meant literally and it doesn’t matter if you think it was meant metaphorically.  All that matters is what Jesus meant.  Let’s see if we can’t figure that out, okay?

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

Mk // posted to Wayne:  “If we are in disagreement, the fault must lie with our interpretation, not with Scripture.”  That is a true statement.  The fault lies with your interpretation since it runs counter to John 11:25-26;  “I am the resurrection, and the life.  He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”  Jesus spoke this prior to the last supper.  The literal eating and drinking to attain eternal life is fully inconsistent with John 11.

MK,
I read part of the website you gave a link for. I cannot read it all as it is too long for me to read right now. However, I looked at parts that claimed they pre-figured the Eucharist and I cannot see that in them. What I can see from the information on this website is that the Mass appears to be a re-institution of the Old Testament system of sacrifice although not the same. It appears that the RCC has emulated in some way the idea of having a sacrificial system to offer sacrifices for sin. In this case they claim to be offering Christ during the Mass, or perhaps more accurately, claiming to be continuing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. As I said before, there is no provision for this in the New Testament. Hebrews teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was already completed. I also cannot see anything in what I did read which would lend any credence to the claim of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The only thing I can see is that Rome puts a literal interpretation on the words we already talked about where we believe it is not meant to be taken literally. I will look into this a little further and see if there is something that can be added. I will also take another scan of that webpage you gave to see if there is anything more I can say about it, but I don’t have time to read the whole thing right now as it is very long. Thanks.

Blue Sky,
Excellent point Blue Sky. 

MK,
If Jesus had meant eternal life is received by eating and drinking his literal flesh and blood, why isn’t it mentioned throughout the gospel of John? Why isn’t it mentioned throughout the New Testament since it would be very important if it were truly necessary for salvation? Faith is often mentioned as necessary for salvation, but not literal eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Same thing in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Paul talks about faith in Jesus Christ, but does not mention literal eating and drinking His flesh and blood as a requirement for salvation.  In fact where the communion service is mentioned in Corinthians, it is in remembrance of Jesus sacrifice. Remembrance is not the same as literally eating His flesh and blood. Therefore we reject the literal interpretation.
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” Romans 5:1
“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

It seems some folks want to add other requirements to faith for salvation.  The apostle Paul has a stern warning for them. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 Then to emphasize the seriousness of perverting the gospel of Christ, he repeats it. “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:9 Paul condemns adding the works of the law to faith when he says “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justifed.” Galatians 2:16

Cradle Catholic,
I will be praying for you. I can understand you may be in a difficult situation. I will ask the Lord if He would provide spritual strength for you. You will not be walking alone. I have faced difficult challenges in my life and have been in a trying situation for a number of years now. Please pray for me as well as I am under a lot of pressure which I can’t discuss.  “The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.” Psalm 18:2 There is much comfort from the Lord through the Psalms.

Again BlueSky,

Why is it either/or?

How do you account for

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

There is only one way.  And that is that BOTH statements are true.

Wayne,

Faith is often mentioned as necessary for salvation, but not literal eating and drinking His flesh and blood.

Faith is mentioned more often because Faith contains the Eucharist, Baptism and The Resurrection.

You say you don’t “have time” and that all you read were a few of the OT passages.  Well, if you don’t have time for this, then you must not be that interested in the Truth.  I would have made time.  I did make time.  I read the page 3 times before I posted it.  This is important to me.  Perhaps it’s just a game to you.  This is why I said you had made your decision.  You are more interested in remaining comfortable than seeking the Truth.

Every Scripture passage you have linked to, I have gone to read.  Why?  Because it is not about what I think, it’s about what IS.  I readily admit that I might have “missed” something.  I rarely get the same for your side.  You divert attention away from the real issues.  You change the subject.  But almost never do you guys seriously look at what I show you.  And most of what I show you is Scripture, something you claim to Love. 

Hebrews says:

  For it is testified: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
  but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away.
    Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them.
  It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: 18 holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens.
  The main point of what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
  a minister of the sanctuary 2 and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up.
  Now every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus the necessity for this one also to have something to offer.

EVERY HIGH PRIEST MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER…What does Jesus offer, perpetually?  Himself.  One offering (His Body and Blood at the Crucifixion) offered perpetually, forever, without end.  Jesus is our High Priest, and a High Pries must have something to offer. 

You let me know when or if you’ve read the entire link, because otherwise I’m just spinning my wheels.  We’ll just go round and round. 
I haven’t given you someone’s commentary to read, I have given you the actual Scripture passages.  Now it’s up to you.  If you’re too busy, then so be it.  Personally, I think that’s a copout, but I don’t know you.  For all I know you have 19 kids are curing cancer.  But if you are sincere, then you will read Scripture.  Isn’t that what you tell us?  You have enough time to answer these comments and cut and paste your own Scripture Passages…?

Joseph,

mk, I didn’t mean you personally or exclusively. I was speaking generally. If you feel singled out, I suggest you imagine your conscience.

Which is why I asked how you don’t know that OTHER Catholics right here on this blog and elsewhere are not also fighting the fight?  I did not feel singled out.  I felt that you cast aspersions on people you don’t know and accused us of behavior that you have no way of knowing whether we practice or don’t.

I cannot help what “others” do.  If they have a siege mentality, that’s their road to walk.  I don’t dump an entire Church because “some” might be dazzled.  Neither should you.  If you find that the teachings of the Church are true, then you stay and fight tooth and nail for what Christ instituted.  You don’t desert and start your own Church as Luther did.

As for Cardinal Cody…where is he now?  How do Chicago Catholics view him today?  If the herd simply did what he asked, how come Catholics today cringe when his name is mentioned?????  Obviously, IN SPITE of his call to defense, people did not respond.  Cody is dead and his name is not on the Calendar of Saints. 

If people choose Catholic “Leaders” over the teachings of the Church, then shame on them, whether they be Bishops, Cardinals or Joe Blow on the street.  The TEACHINGS, (are you getting this), the TEACHINGS are infallible and indefectible, NOT the Clergy.  Church with a small “c” is corruptible and at times indefensible.  Church with a capital “C” is as close to heaven as it gets.

MK,
“Well, if you don’t have time for this, then you must not be that interested in the Truth.”
Firstly, I already believe I have the truth on this matter. You misunderstand. I am not searching for the truth on it.
Secondly, I am willing to read a reasonable amount. You gave me pages and thousands of words to read at another website. I gave a few scripture passages to read in a post. That is insignificant in comparison to the long article you gave in a link and then complained because I hadn’t read the whole thing. I did in fact read parts of it and may read more if time permits and examine it more closely in order to better understand why the RCC believes the way they do.
When Jesus said “This do in remembrance of me,” He is showing that the Lord’s supper was not a magical operation but was primarily a memorial instituted all through time to remember our crucified Lord and the wonderful benefits of the crucifixion. A memorial is quite different than the real thing. Furthermore you cannot memorialize someone who is present in the Mass as RCs say Christ is present physically. How can that then be a memorial as Scripture says it is? (1 Cor.11:25) The real meaning of Christ’s words can be understood when compared with the figurative language Jesus said to the woman at Jacob’s well. “Every one that drinketh this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.” John 4:13,14. The language used here is the same kind of figurative language which Jesus used in John ch6 about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. There is no reason why it is not also figurative.

MK,
When Jesus spoke about the Lord’s supper at the Last Supper He said “I tell you, I will not drink this fruit of the vine from now until the day when I drink it new with you my Father’s reign.” Matthew 26:29 The New American RC Bible. Jesus knew this was just wine and even said so in this verse after He gave it to his disciples.  The apostle Paul, after pronouncing the words of the communion service, said “Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes!” 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul also knew it was only really bread and wine they were eating and drinking. Jesus and Paul both knew they were symbols of Jesus’ broken body and shed blood and that when they took them, they were proclaiming the death of the Lord.

MK,
“EVERY HIGH PRIEST MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER…What does Jesus offer, perpetually?  Himself.  One offering (His Body and Blood at the Crucifixion) offered perpetually, forever, without end.  Jesus is our High Priest, and a High Priest must have something to offer.”
You quoted these verses from Hebrews. These verse simply show that Jesus is the high priest. There is no disagreement with that. They demonstrate that Jesus is the priest all believers are to go to in the New Testament. There are no earthly priests after Christ came. There is no earthly procedure (Mass) necessary to make Jesus’ sacrifice effective perpetually. Man can add nothing to what God has already done. One must believe in Jesus’ once for all sacrifice to receive salvation. How can one believe in it for themselves and still believe that Masses are necessary as a sacrifice for sin or that one needs to atone for one’s sins in some way? It is a contradiction.

Wayne,

To say that you are not searching for the Truth is a dangerous statement. 

When Jesus said “This do in remembrance of me,” He is showing that the Lord’s supper was not a magical operation but was primarily a memorial instituted all through time to remember our crucified Lord and the wonderful benefits of the crucifixion. A memorial is quite different than the real thing. Furthermore you cannot memorialize someone who is present in the Mass as RCs say Christ is present physically. How can that then be a memorial as Scripture says it is? (1 Cor.11:25) The real meaning of Christ’s words can be understood when compared with the figurative language Jesus said to the woman at Jacob’s well. “Every one that drinketh this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.”

Reading “a few” passages from that link is what you do with Scripture.  You don’t look at it as a “whole”.  You pull parts out of context and don’t see them as they apply to ALL of Scripture.  That’s what that website attempted to do.

As for the woman at the well…He was most definitely NOT speaking metaphorically.  The waters of Baptism are REAL and they do bring eternal life.

As for “memorial”.  You fail to understand or even try to understand what memorial means.  I’ve explained it, but as much of what I have written seems to be ignored I’m not sure what the point of explaining it again would be.  You define “Remember” the way a person in 2011 would define it.  But Jesus didn’t celebrate the last supper in 2011 and the word “Memorial” or “Remember” had a very different meaning back then, in the context of the Jewish Faith.  It was a ritual memorial.  Ask any Jew today, what happens at their passover celebration and they will tell you that they GO BACK to the original passover.  They don’t simply think about it, but actually GO BACK.  The first question asked at the Seder meal is “Why is TONIGHT different than all other nights?”

If you are not interested in learning more about your Faith, and entering more deeply into union with Jesus, then there is nothing to be done.  I believe with all my heart that the Catholic Church is the One True Church given to us by Jesus, BUT, if someone were to show me that I was wrong, I would change my allegiance in a heartbeat.  Because I am not interested in my opinion, or my “feelings”.  I am only interested in doing WHATEVER HE TELLS ME.  This is why I remain open to the possibility that I do not have all of the answers.

Wayne,

“EVERY HIGH PRIEST MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER…What does Jesus offer

Well, what does He offer?  You agree He is the High Priest and Hebrews says that every high priest must have something to offer.  So what does He offer?

mk, Thanks for your defense of faith. You have been doing a terrific job!

Wayne, He picked up a piece of bread in His hands and said “This is My Body”.  At that moment, He was speaking about a piece of bread.  Not about words He had spoken earlier, not about actions He had done earlier.  He was talking about a silly piece of bread!  And the disciples are all looking at each other saying with their eyes and expressions, “What the heck?!! You’re kidding right? No? Well, if You say so!”  And they took and eat.  THAT is what we have to do at first maybe too.  When we do we realize It is!  Somehow, some way, IT IS! Praise you Lord Jesus Christ.  Then He took a cup of wine and blessed God and said to them, “This is the cup of My Blood which shall be given up for you.  The blood of the new and everlasting covenant. Take and drink.”  Again, they are shocked and amazed.  “This is Your blood?” He wasn’t referring to words He had spoken.  He wasn’t referring to previous actions.  He was talking about this chalice held in His hand and they believed not because it made sense, but because HE said it and they knew He was the Messiah.  It is clear - if you are willing to open your heart and it is extremely hard to grasp on a simply human level.  It is seen through the eyes of faith alone.  God bless.

God bless you and peace. I’m back for a little while. My advice to you who believe that Jesus Christ established His church to teach infallibly: Follow the pure and unblemished doctrine of Jesus’ church, the Holy Catholic Church if you wish to be perfect. I’m sure you agree that Jesus would not have established His church if it were going to teach error. Otherwise, why would Jesus establish a church? Would Jesus establish a church that would mislead us? I have enough faith that Jesus wouldn’t do that. Why not buy the Catholic catachism if you wish to learn the doctrine of the Catholic Church? No, I’m not against scripture. Why would I be against Holy Scripture if it was the Holy Catholic Church that gave us scripture? What really makes me wonder is this: The Holy Catholic Church is the Mother of Holy Scripture, and yet many set themselves up to fight the Mother of Holy Scripture with the scripture that the Mother gave them. It doesn’t make sense to me. If they can trust that Holy Scripture is infallible, then, why can’t they trust that the Mother that gave them Holy Scripture is also infallible? It’s silly to reject the Mother and not the fruits that the Mother gave them. Why can’t they at least thank the Mother that gave them Holy Scripture?

MK,
“EVERY HIGH PRIEST MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER…What does Jesus offer

Well, what does He offer?”
What He offers is described in Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10.  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Hebrews 9:28
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, havingrist obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 9:11,12
As Hebrews says Christ has replaced the Old Testament priesthood and sacrifices which were looking forward to Jesus. “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 9:11-13.  So where is the true tabernacle? “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:”
Hebrews 9:24 Christ is in heaven on the right hand of God interceding for His people continually. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” Hebrews 10:12 That is where the true tabernacle is. Christ is our mediator; not Mary, not the saints, not an earthly priest in Mass or confession. None of these can intercede to God on our behalf. There is only one mediator and He is our high priest Jesus Christ. “For there is one God, and mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” 1 Timothy 2:5 We must go directly to Him in faith believing that He paid it all for us and continues to intercede on our behalf. Not the piece of bread. That will not do. It cannot save you. Leave that for the idol worshippers who will not listen to God’s Word. May God have mercy on them. Only Jesus who is seated in heaven at the right hand of God in heaven will save all those who come unto God by Him.

Pam,
The last posting was meant to be addressed to you too.

Philip Saenz,
“The Holy Catholic Church is the Mother of Holy Scripture, and yet many set themselves up to fight the Mother of Holy Scripture with the scripture that the Mother gave them.”
Sorry friend, but Holy Scripture was given to mankind by God, not by mother church. God inspired the prophets and apostles to write Holy Scripture. “Prophecy has never been put forward by man’s willing it. It is rather that men impelled by the Holy Spirit have spoken under God’s influence.” 2 Peter ch1 vs21b Roman Catholic New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. “All Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching-for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy ch3 vs16 RC New American Bible. “You form a building which rises on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.” Ephesians ch2 vs20. RC NAB. This verse makes it clear the church is built on the teachings of the apostles and prophets (Holy Scripture), not the other way around.

Wayne..you reject a concept, theory or Biblical citation of Petrine Priesthood, authority, which we have discussed. Accepting Peter as Christ’s direct heir, Jesus Christ appointed representative, the Chair of the Papacy was created by Christ. That is Catholic and your views with all the respect which has been given should consider the basis if Catholicism is solid and your belief on John the Baptist is convoluted. The reformation did many things t gave many the apologetic of reformation, the arguments you make are the classic anti Catholic diatribes which permeate blogs. If you would consider that Christ made Peter the one to carry forward the words and action of Christ great message and crucifixion you’d understand you take a position which is invalid and only given legitimacy as you see it from that origination schism to maintain a monarchism society. those are the history of schism as there may be only one truth

Wayne// Arguments proffered supporting apologetics concerning a priesthood and new mediator beyond the apostolic age remain weak and biblically unscriptural in light of known salvation for both OT and NT saints never receiving Eucharist.

Wayne,

What He offers is described in Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10.  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

According to you that is what He offerED.  Past Tense.  But Hebrews says is a High Priest FOREVER, and every High Priest MUST have something to offer.

What is He offering NOW?

Wayne…why is Hebrews the definitive Book for the evangelicalism in Christendom today? There are many Books in the Bible but there is consistency to the arguments you bring all very classical. I just don’t get the hyphenation and tensing of some “high-priest” having to offer as opposed to the ultimate sacrifice. You are anglicizing the Bible…

When Jesus spoke about the Lord’s supper at the Last Supper He said “I tell you, I will not drink this fruit of the vine from now until the day when I drink it new with you my Father’s reign.” Matthew 26:29 The New American RC Bible. Jesus knew this was just wine and even said so in this verse after He gave it to his disciples.  The apostle Paul, after pronouncing the words of the communion service, said “Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes!” 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul also knew it was only really bread and wine they were eating and drinking. Jesus and Paul both knew they were symbols of Jesus’ broken body and shed blood and that when they took them, they were proclaiming the death of the Lord.

Baloney. 

Jesus says THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT while He is holding the cup of wine. Then He says I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in the Kingdom.  Duh.  After His death, on every altar in the world, we DRINK THE FRUIT OF THE VINE WITH HIM. 

It’s like you lose the ability to read plain English when you read John 6.  It mind boggling.  THIS IS MY BODY…oh He didn’t mean that.  THIS IS MY BLOOD…oh He knew it was just a symbol.  TRULY I SAY UNLESS YOU EAT…no, no, He didn’t mean really eat.  The word used isn’t actually eat…It’s GNAW. 

If you want to continue denying what Jesus and Paul said, that’s fine.  But every person here can read.  Jesus said This is my BODY not once, not twice, but a dozen times!!!!! 

Paul confirms it.

Why do you insist that it is either/or? NOWHERE does it say FAITH ALONE.  Nowhere, and yet THIS you accept.  But when it says OVER AND OVER….THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY BLOOD.  THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY BLOOD.  Suddenly it’s all in our heads.  It’s like satan has put some kind of spell on you and you become dyslexic when reading certain passages.  Honestly!

“Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes!”

Yes, this is TRUE.  But it doesn’t cancel out when He says:

1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

  A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30

How in the world does that contradict:

“Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes!” 1 Corinthians 11:26

It’s NOT either/or.  It’s ALL of it.  When you eat His BODY and drink His BLOOD you ARE proclaiming that you believe that He died, rose and will come again.  You cannot just ignore Scripture that is inconvenient.  Well you can, but you do it at your own risk.  I realize those passages that institute the Eucharist are troublesome and challenge your erroneous beliefs, but unlike Luther, we don’t just add our own words or throw out entire books because they don’t fit our own vision.  We read what is there and WE adapt.  We don’t change scripture, ignore scripture or dismiss scripture because it doesn’t jive with our own views.

Ahhhh Wayne,

May God have mercy on them. Only Jesus who is seated in heaven at the right hand of God in heaven will save all those who come unto God by Him.

That Jesus that is sitting at the right hand of God the Father???  I got news for you…He is also the same Jesus that transforms bread and wine into His flesh and blood.  Do dismiss the Eucharist is to dismiss Jesus Himself.  If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with Him.  I didn’t write the Bread of Life discourse.  I didn’t write the Gospels stories of the Last Supper and I certainly didn’t say THIS IS MY BODY.  But He did.  Your issue is not with me.  It’s with Him.  The same God you claim to Love and then proceed to ignore.

An Mk post//  “We read what is there and WE adapt.”  The corrected is “We read what is there and adopt (what is not there”).

WayneM, and who told you that Holy Scripture was given to us by God if not the Holy Catholic Church? Come on, who told you that the Bible is the word of God? I’ll bet you won’t answer that. Some crazies actually believe that the Bible mysteriously fell out of the sky with numbers, chapters and verses. Well WayneM, it did not. By the way, why do some yoyos think that the Bible is a history book? Do you see any dates on it? Guess who gives us the dates. If you give up, I’ll tell you. It was the Holy Catholic Church. Or are you one of those who picks and chooses tidbits here and there from history to back up your own fabricated history? Look, WayneM, everything that you know about Jesus came from the Holy Catholic Church. If not, then, from whom? I dare you answer that question. Guess what? First there was a Holy Catholic Church and then Holy Writ. It was the Holy Catholic Church that compiled the Holy Bible at Carthage in the year 397 Anno Domini. If you don’t believe that, then, you give your false history. Come on, don’t let the cat get your tongue. Okay? Again, I ask, who told you that the Bible was the word of God? I’ll bet you won’t answer that? Where will you go to get your fabricated information? From Jimmy Swaggart, who came almost 2,000 years after the Holy Catholic Church?
Hey, who was the first pope? Who followed him? Who was the third pope? Will you dare answer? I’ll bet you won’t. May God bless you WayneM. May God enlighten you. Personally, I think that some of you are funny. Can you believe that I smile almost constantly? It’s true. If you knew me, I’ll bet that you would never catch me in an angry mood. My sons and grandchildren think I’m the greatest guy on earth. Okay, WayneM, answer my questions. I dare you?

Joe- I read your last few posts, with interest, particularly the one to Wayne: “Posted by Joe on Wednesday, Apr 6, 2011 1:43 PM”

A question has been on my mind since this morning, when I was listening to Catholic radio.  The program subject was the importance of The Church being “apostolic”.  I always thought “apostolic” meant we were to be taught the truths handed down by the apostles.  I was wrong.  That’s not what is meant by our Magesterium’s definition of apostolic.

From what I heard on the program, apostolic is focused primarily on the handing down of power (authority) by church leadership, from one generation to another, until today.

As a result, I became curious to know how we got our “Cardinals”, known as our “Princes of the Church”.  I’d like to know whose original apostolic position Church Prince Cardinal Law of Boston & Church Prince Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles would have filled.  Do you know?
*******************************************************

To WayneM- Thank you for your prayers, and yes, I will keep you in my prayers too.  God IS on His Throne.  We must make Him laugh (and cry!), like all children do to a parent.

As for Sacrifices - it is over.  Or to quote Jesus, “It is finished.” and He sat down, showing us *reconciliation to God was completed.*

As for the Body and Blood being literal or symbolic.  I have been misled since childhood about SO many things by the church of my youth, no doubt by well-meaning people that were deceived themselves, I am very cautious about what teachings I hold fast to.  I also do not say just anything, willy-nilly, at Mass or in response to corporate prayer.

So I asked myself, when I receive Communion, & the priest or Eucharistic Minister says to me, “The Body of Christ”, can I say “Amen” to that, and be congruent, or am I just mouthing what’s expected of me, to make life easy?

I have determined that when Jesus said, “This is my Body” and “take and eat” - it IS His Body, & just like the old adage, “You are what you eat”,
my consuming Jesus’ Body in Communion, with other believers, helps me to live life in a manner that is more like Jesus- and it pleases Him.

But I also believe that were I to receive Communion in ANY Bible-believing non-Catholic church, I would be receiving the Body of Christ.  I receive His Body, in FAITH.

That is what makes it sacred, and set apart.  So it’s not just a wafer AFTER it has been consecrated, in the Catholic Church or when it has been prayed over, and set apart for believers in another Christian church. 

With that said, I do not believe only the priest is needed in order for a body of believers to have Communion.  I do not believe, as so many Catholics do, “WE NEED A PRIEST TO BRING US JESUS!!!” - I do not believe the priest himself is any special kind of “Jesus” - “altar Cristi” - and I do not believe the priest is “married to” the Church, and pew people are the priest’s collective spouse.

I find it troubling that nearly every time an extra-biblical idea has been brought up at the Vatican, throughout history, some weird happening becomes known.  Not to go off on a rabbit trail - but as an example, when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary-being born sinless) was being discussed in Rome, conveniently, in her next apparition, she introduced herself as “I am the Immaculate Conception”.  I smell a rat.

Similarly, I went to see a traveling exhibit about Eucharistic miracles, where the host was found to contain DNA or blood, etc.  It’s just too convenient- with most of the “happenings” being during the days of the church when MOST folks were illiterate.  Getting them to believe extra-biblical happenings would be like taking candy from a baby.

How come NONE of this stuff is in the Bible?  How come it was only around the Dark Ages that most of this stuff started to come out?  How come all this only happens with Catholics, & not much with non-Catholic Christians?

How come most priests, bishops and the Vatican are more concerned with a steady supply of NEWER things to believe?  New saints, new dogmas - new, new, new.  So much for sticking with the truths handed down by the apostles, and recorded in Scripture.  Did Paul say, “Latch on to every NEW doctrine you can get your hands on!!  Yea, that’s the ticket!!”

Most Catholics, it has been my experience, would believe ANY source over the Bible.  Most use the Bible, just as we’d use spell-check after finishing a letter.  Like, “Hmmm.  This is what I want to say.  Now let me find a verse to back it up.”

Even if there IS no verse - no worries!  Just call it “Tradition”, and you’ll have it made in the shade.  Even if it’s tradition from the DARK AGES.  They weren’t dark for nothing.  God is light.

Joe - here’s another question for you:  How come we can have CEO’s of companies, surgeons, high-power politicans, and otherwise hugely powerful people in the secular world that are decison-makers, and highly intelligent… and yet, when they are Roman Catholic, they revert to impressionable second-graders that believe anything?  Really - if a bishop said the Tooth Fairy was real & needed a job, they’d put her on their payroll, no questions asked.

I must point out that ANOTHER kind of Catholic is the one that ignores everything the Magesterium teaches, and the kind that doesn’t give a hoot about morality in our society, but just shows up at Mass, & says the words, rote.  As in: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”  Most of those are Roman Catholic politicians.  God help us.

I’ve read some of these comments, though not all, and as a former Catholic I am in agreement with Wayne and Cradle.  Regarding MK’s question about Jesus still being the High Priest, and if so what is He offering now?:  He doesn’t need to continue to make a sacrifice in order to qualify as High Priest , any more than a Catholic priest would no longer be considered a priest if he retired from saying Mass. The sacrifice was made once and for all, as the letter to Hebrews says.
The Catholic definition of the Eucharist as a “re-presentation” of Jesus’ sacrifice would make sense if they didn’t try to claim that it is also the same sacrifice as the original one.  Something cannot be both a re-presentation and the original event at the same time.  It’s either one or the other. Looking back to ancient writings ( sorry, but I can’t remember which Church father said this), the “sacrifice” referred to in the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that we give to God for His sacrifice for us. It also would not make sense to say that at the Last Supper Jesus was actually sacrificing Himself right then and there, which you would have to say is true if the Mass is the same as His death on the cross.

BS,

An Mk post//  “We read what is there and WE adapt.”  The corrected is “We read what is there and adopt (what is not there”).

I don’t know how to tell you this, but if John 6 is not in your bible, then you got gypped.  In mine it says….Unless you eat my body you will not have life within you….what does yours say?

Nope.  I just checked 13 different translations.  They all say the same thing.  I can’t imagine what version you are reading…

Oh Look!  The Jews said just what you say! 

  The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

To which JESUS, you know, the Son of God and author of the INERRANT WORD OF GOD, replies:
53
  Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

And here is the Greek word used for EAT:

If there is a difference, however, the word used here (?????) is the more graphic and vivid of the two (“gnaw” or “chew”).

http://net.bible.org/#!search/2068

The words are there.  The Jews questioned Jesus.  Jesus clarified.  Any “Third Grader” ;) could tell what this passage means.  I am not the one jumping through hoops to make it say something it doesn’t.  I am not the one rationalizing.

BS,

The corrected is “We read what is there and adopt (what is not there”).

I know you do.  Isn’t that what I said?

Wayne,

Here’s a question…

Did you baptize yourself?

Did you marry yourself?

Or did you go to a minister to have it done?

Why?  Why didn’t you just go to God?  Why did you need a “mediator”?

BACC,

A question has been on my mind since this morning, when I was listening to Catholic radio.  The program subject was the importance of The Church being “apostolic”.  I always thought “apostolic” meant we were to be taught the truths handed down by the apostles.  I was wrong.  That’s not what is meant by our Magesterium’s definition of apostolic.

If you didn’t know this, it makes me wonder what else you don’t know.

You can find the Apostolic line going back as far as the 14th century. 

The “Episcopal Lineage” or “Apostolic Succession” is simply a list tracing back a bishop’s principal consecrator and then that bishop’s principal consecrator, etc. This information is not always listed - most often because I simply have not had the time to add the information (or have not yet discovered it). The lineage, in theory, should be traceable back to one of the apostles. However, several factors make this impossible. First, my databases of bishops is quite limited - mostly because of the resources (time and money) it takes to research and add historical bishops. Over the years the databases have expanded incredibly and I hope this will continue for years to come. Second, in many cases the sources for consecration data are hard to find - especially in the 17th century and earlier. Generally I rely on other researchers (notably Charles Bransom) for consecration information. (See also the list of sources.)

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/help.html

Here is Cardinal Francis George…

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bgeorge.html

MK, the Bible specifically calls for presbyters, elders, and bishops to teach the faith and pastor the faithful.  Regarding the sacraments you mentioned, are you aware that in Catholicism ANYONE can perform a valid baptism if it’s done with water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Are you also aware that in Catholicism that a couple marries themselves, and the priest is a witness?  He does not “perform” a wedding. So even Catholics recognize the “priesthood of all believers” in some ways.

As for Sacrifices - it is over.  Or to quote Jesus, “It is finished.” and He sat down, showing us *reconciliation to God was completed.*

“It is finished” are the first words to Psalm 22.  It is the Psalm that foretells Jesus death.  It is a song of victory.  Every Jew that heard it recognized it for what it was.  A song.  It meant that the prophecy they had all been waiting for was now fulfilled. 

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

The actual word used means consummated.  Fulfilled.  Completed.

19:28 After this Jesus, realizing that by this time 81 everything was completed, 82 said (in order to fulfill the scripture), 83 “I am thirsty!” 84 19:29 A jar full of sour wine 85 was there, so they put a sponge soaked in sour wine on a branch of hyssop 86 and lifted it 87 to his mouth. 19:30 When 88 he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, “It is completed!” 89 Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 90
:31 Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath 91 (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), 92 the Jewish leaders 93 asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs 94 broken 95 and the bodies taken down. 96 19:32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified 97 with Jesus, 98 first the one and then the other. 99 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced 100 his side with a spear, and blood and water 101 flowed out immediately. 19:35 And the person who saw it 102 has testified (and his testimony is true, and he 103 knows that he is telling the truth), 104 so that you also may believe. 19:36 For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.” 105 19:37 And again another scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.” 106

Bishops…the main reason Protestantism is invalid as it stands as a religion is the succession of Bishops. Bishops make priests who makes Bishops? That in the Petrine Priesthood. That is also known as ascendancy. The succession from Peter.

Yes, Beth, I am aware of that.  My question was not about the Catholic Sacraments.  It was to show that even Protestants recognize that sometimes you can’t go directly to God and need a mediator.  Even if I were to baptize someone, I am still mediating.  No One can baptize themselves.  And the couple, still need the priest to mediate.  It isn’t a valid, sacramental marriage without a priest.

Either way, I was not addressing the priesthood, but the fact that we all believe in mediators other than Jesus, even if we don’t know that we do.  Wayne had made the statement that Jesus did it all and we don’t need anyone else.

Joe- So there were church leaders identified as “Princes of the Church”, and also known as Cardinals, in the days of the Apostles?  Who were the Princes of the Church then?

Mk//  Any relevancy of your theology demands human mediation between God and man which is NT apostacy.

Beth,

It’s either one or the other. Looking back to ancient writings ( sorry, but I can’t remember which Church father said this), the “sacrifice” referred to in the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that we give to God for His sacrifice for us. It also would not make sense to say that at the Last Supper Jesus was actually sacrificing Himself right then and there, which you would have to say is true if the Mass is the same as His death on the cross.

First, it is both actually.  The celebration of the Eucharist is a number of things.  It is a celebration.  Of thanksgiving.  That’s what Eucharist means.  Thanks giving.  It is also a meal, in the vein of a Todah, a Jewish Meal that is eaten in Thanksgiving.  It is also a reentering of the Crucifixion and therefore it is a sacrifice.  It is also a miracle in that the bread and wine is changed into His Body and Blood.  It’s quite an event.  And it happens every day. 

Second, no it is not contradictory to say that Jesus is both the Sacrificed and the One Who Sacrifices.  Even the protestants on here understand that.  He, as High Priest, offered Himself.  He was both.  High Priest AND Sacrificial Lamb.  That’s part of what makes the whole thing so danged beautiful.

BS,

Any relevancy of your theology demands human mediation between God and man which is NT apostacy.

I thought Jesus was a man.  Hmmmm….must be that bible your using.  Gotta get me one of those.

Hey BS,

I’ll see your apostasy and raise you a couple of heresies.  lol.

The Five Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers’ basic theological beliefs in opposition to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day.

  * Solus Christus: Christ alone.
  * Sola scriptura: Scripture alone. Only teachings found in the Protestant bible are binding.
  * Sola fide: Faith alone, rejecting the value of good works or prayers towards salvation.
  * Sola gratia: Grace alone. Human initiative has no part in salvation.
  * Soli Deo gloria: Glory to God alone. Devotion to Mary and the Saints strongly discouraged.

According to Peter of Cluny, Henry’s teaching is summed up as follows:

  * Rejection of the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the church;
  * Recognition of the Gospel freely interpreted as the sole rule of faith;
  * Refusal to recognize any form of worship or liturgy; and
  * Condemnation of
      o the baptism of infants,
      o the Eucharist,
      o the sacrifice of the mass,
      o the communion of saints, and
      o prayers for the dead;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heresies_in_Catholicism

But don’t worry…you’re in good company.  You’re right up there with the Jehovah Witnesses, the Latter Day Saints and the Jansenists.  At least you won’t be lonely!

MK, my point was that Jesus could not simultaneously be distributing the bread and wine at the Last Supper, and at the very same time be dying on the cross, which is what you would have to believe if the Eucharist is one and the same as the original event of Jesus’ death on the cross.
Regarding mediators, that issue does have to do with the priesthood, because the Catholic Church teaches that one must have a priest to mediate between God and man.  Protestants believe that while ministers are helpful in shepherding the faithful,and the Bible does call for them,  Jesus is our only mediator. Hence as the Bible says “There is only one mediator, the man Christ Jesus”. Also, there is no reference in the New Testament to a Christian “priesthood” other than the priesthood of beleivers.  The word for “presbyter” is not the same as the word for “priest”.  A priest is someone who offers sacrifices, and as the letter to Hebrews makes clear ( and as even you pointed out) Jesus said “It is finished”.  There was no more need for sacrifices, hence no more need for priests.

Mk// The incarnate Messiah ended at the cross.  Intentional avoidance of biblical and historical data points reflect poor theology.

Born Again…It’s as all interpretive perhaps.
These are not exact, Peter, in the theory of Catholicism, “connected with the Apostles and being sent by them (Acts 8:14) Peter was portrayed as a fisherman (Luke 5:10; John 21: 1-14) Shepard of Jesus Christ (John 21: 15-17) as an elder addressing other elders (1 Peter: 5-11) The Old and New Testament all reference the establishment of Petrine Priesthood, Cardinal I believe was an assignment of that ascendancy on the growth of the Church, Catholic that if Peter could and did address doctrinal misunderstandings (2 Peter 3-15) and as the rock upon which the church (Catholic, to be built (Matt 16:18) this is the empirical data that if the Messiah as found over and over in the Old testament is the Son of God, then He assigned to peter, (Petrine) the ultimate authority.

Joe - Peter was a fisherman & a shepherd, agreed.  He was also trustworthy.  Peter lived a simple life.  I’m not questioning the authority of Peter (& the other apostles, for that matter, & they were all MEN, NOT women).  Agreed.

But with that said, how did we get PRINCES of the Church?  How did we go from fisherman, shepherds and leaders, to PRINCES?

Born Again…I think “Princes of the Church” were a creation of the Church to effect ascendancy. We seem today, to think the ease on information has been forever thus. Aquinas, Augustine were all privileged men and also very much in step with 12th Century Christianity. Educated men were taught by religious not state institution, As the Church Catholic, all the good intention She has always had, grew, organizational and doctrinal authority had to be maintained. Tough speaking all those languages, and the idea of Cardinals and “Prices of the Church” fashioned under the monarchy’s the early Church, Catholic took Her lead.

If perhaps an Apple or IBM been, we would address our hierarchy different. The great events, the Plague and the 1918 flu vaccine spread because there was no institutional safeguards, ideas and spirituality transcend often from the misery of humankind. Prices and not Princesses that’s Church, Catholic and Her liturgy; not theology. That is preservation of ecclesiastic authority and places of worship. Different era and traditional thinking, traditional and correct. I am amazed at the Catholic Church for all the greatness She brings because of the men and women who accept…Ash Wednesday this year there was the normal buzz in Church but at time of the Offertory the silence and spiritualism in that church was majestic. You could have heard a pin drop. I hope this isn’t taken without the knowledge that your search is not any different than many have recently taken. This is how I was taught and what the search I took found easiest to explain.

Wayne, You don’t address the truth of my statements.  How come.  They negate your interpretation of the quotes you give.  God bless.

Born Again…I apologize for coming back but an idea has been formulating. In the early 1970’s I was in cloister, it was a time in life for reflection post Kent State.

I encountered men in that cloister who were the happiest and most joyful men who lived on charity. They did have a mentor of sorts his name was Thomas Merton, who takes a licking now and then. Seven Storrey Mountain is that man’s journey and while it is very 20th Century it recounts has this convert traveled back to Europe to find his Catholicism. That may sound a bit skewed but it was a trans formative event in thinking about same time Augustine, Augustus and Cervantes came into my subconscious, all these moral tales by men who believed as we Catholics believe. That book is still available.
Merton was a prolific writer.

In his Observation of An Innocent Bystander, Merton observed the simplicity in faith, A monk through observation marveled as he awoke and a supposed his standing in the same place opined on the shadow that never fell the same place. his observation innocent was the glory of God. It was the observation of Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologicae that lead the Catholic Church in Her teachings, and like the monk was trough simple and discernible observation that the teachings of the Catholic Church are memorialized.

That may not be a bad book to read today, another era and that same observation.

Joe - It’s not how we start (like the saved thief on the Cross) it’s how we finish.  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Merton that was studying the writings of Buddhah when he died, and he was electrocuted (died) before he was able to bring that contamination back with him?

Regarding “princes” of the church: There is NO excuse for it.  We are to be IN the world, but not OF the world.  The church is to influence the culture, not the reverse.

Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me?”  To Peter’s reply, Jesus said, “Feed my sheep, care for my lambs.”  Jesus did not promise Peter or any successors, a life of luxury, or a royal title that is secular, on earth.

I have been accused of being my “own pope”.  If I were, in a heartbeat, I would throw out of office ALL the members of the Magesterium that forgot they are here to SERVE God’s sheep, not LORD over them, expecting to be called by royal names, and treated as “princes”.

Born Again…You are very correct, I am not so naive as not to know those shortcomings I view in my faith, on that I keep my own council.

Correct on Merton, before he went to Thailand, and for that schism he was routinely ridiculed, some very cynical think murdered now there is the deceit of the powers that could be…

We do agree on the pompousness of the Church, Catholic. If I may, if you are going to bring them in, an old retailer here, make the show worth it. I believe in the Church, Catholic and the theology of Catholicism. I love the majesty of the Latin mass, as we do celebrate the Last Supper, we use superlative in relationship to God.

I would like the belief system I recognized and experienced to be more abundant in my liturgy, I like the “own pope” analogy and believe that the underpinnings to thinking were dramatically changed in the 1960-1970, that society became inward and very “me” oriented. The Magesterium I would love to sit in on, the rationale it determines the subtle changes to the abundance of faith I wish for you and all. Being Catholic is a full time job anymore. Thank you for indulging my belief.

Sic Transit Gloria

Philip Saenz,
In the apostolic age and early centuries, the church was composed of various local churches. Examples of these churches were the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians ch1 vs2), churches of Galatia (Galatians ch1 vs2), church in Rome (Romans ch1 vs7), saints at Ephesus (Ephesians ch1 vs1), saints at Colosse (Colossians 1 vs2), etc.  The apostle Paul wrote epistles to these various churches and visited them on his missionary journeys. There were bishops appointed. But there was no Pope mentioned in the New Testament.  Jerusalem played a leading role in the early church (30 to 44 A.D.) and one of the first church councils was held there (Acts ch15).  The early church was not dominated by the Roman Catholic church.  No reference is made to such a thing in the New Testament.  The apostles and prophets who wrote the New Testament were chosen by God to be apostles.  There was no Roman Catholic church as we know it at that time.  You can read about the early church and the missionary journeys of the apostle Paul in Acts.  Around 170 A.D. the church was calling itself catholic or universal.  The exaltation and recognition of the supremacy of one bishop in Rome was a gradual development which occurred in the early centuries.  The apostle Peter in his first epistle made it clear that not he but Christ was the foundation of the church (1 Peter 2:6-8).  The doctrine of apostolic succession and the primacy of the bishop in Rome developed gradually.  Eventually the Roman bishop became recognized as the supreme bishop of the church. The idea behind this was to try to combat schism and to promote unity.  Because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire, it was natural that the Roman bishop would be recognized as the supreme bishop according to those who promoted this idea.  The title of Pope or universal bishop was given to Boniface iii by emperor Phocas in 607 A.D. I am not sure whether the title Pope was first used. However, the papacy and supremacy of the Roman see was never taught by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament.  Can you find any evidence in the New Testament of the apostles recognizing Peter as a pope or the existence of any pope? It is not there.

Pam,
“Wayne, You don’t address the truth of my statements.  How come.  They negate your interpretation of the quotes you give.  God bless.”
What time did you post it?  There are so many comments made by MK that it would be impossible for me to keep up with them. I have stated much of what I know and believe on the subject of the interpretation of the bread and wine and the Mass. I am not sure there is much that I could add at the moment.  I don’t think you or MK are really listening to what I posted and the scriptural support I gave.

Philip Saenz,
You seem to have the idea that the Roman Catholic church was the only church from the time of the apostles. As I said and it is worth repeating, there were various churches which the epistles in the New Testament were addressed to. There was no one church in the early period of the church history which had supremacy over all the other churches.  When you speak of the Holy Catholic church are you talking about the Roman Catholic church or do you mean the church in general which existed in the early centuries in the various locations? You have probably been told the Roman Catholic church was the only church and supreme over all other churches in the apostolic age. But the New Testament does not support that.  A book I have says the title “Pope” was applied to all Western bishops, but by 500 A.D. it began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome, then gradually to “universal bishop” based on the Roman doctrine of apostolic succession and the primacy of Peter.  Leo I (440-461 A.D.) obtained recognition as primate from Emperor Valentinian III (445 A.D.). Leo I advocated an exclusive papacy. But this was close to 500 A.D.  I will grant you that can probably find Roman Catholic literature that will tell you something different.  But the RCC recognizes the Holy Scriptures as inspired so we should be able to agree on using that as a guide and it does not mention Popes or apostolic succession of a papacy.

Philip…I agree no terminology of Pope. I agree on the historical sees of the Bishoprics of the Mediterranean area. Commerce was as much responsible for the expansion of these sees of Christianity. I do not find there any flaw.

Church, Catholic has an empirical logic to it. That the designation of ope was made by a monarch, or a despot such was the time and place of the Church, Catholic, Universal.

The Bible does speak of the superior nature to one of twelve, Peter. The Bible does speak to his, peter, correcting interpretation of the words of Jesus Christ. As in any recounting there is a deviation today more pronounced, then less.

We accept truth often in our lives but we have deviant acts around us; a politician is quoted as “do not speak poorly” of another in his political sphere. The theology of Catholicism is apparent in that which is presented by the Church, Catholic which is clear and undeniable, the simplicity to Her beauty of truth resounds today.

If we get too historical or too introverted on the facts of faith in the minutia of terminology on the Pope or the “Princes of the Church” they all seem to be very human and very apostolic, in the continuing leadership in values, we may lose sight of the redemptive process. I can assure you schism and doubts are everywhere, the “truth goes marching on” never more true than on this blog.

The subject of this blog the Reverend Richard John Neuhaus was the man after my own father, who reconciled me back to the deep faith I believe. I did not know of him until the McLaughlin Group, that should tell you something about my views of just about everything, he debated eloquently a Sister who is another prolific, if not errant follower, she is very big on the Beatitudes of which Father Neuhaus took learned but respectful disagreement.

This has been another surprising twist to my travels, we all think the same but have a twist on or respective faith, that to me is Catholicisms at Her best, we all are looking

Wayne??? another book, I have to think that all the history is on your side, but ho many versions, you have a specific take on Baptist thinking, and most can see that. These terminologies are what disturb you that in itself I do not understand. How many interpretations can there be to redemption, If I take my stand and yous take a stand that deviate to the degree you do, then there is schism here between our view and Wayne, we cannot both be correct.

Philip Saenz,
“Can you believe that I smile almost constantly? It’s true. If you knew me, I’ll bet that you would never catch me in an angry mood. My sons and grandchildren think I’m the greatest guy on earth.”
I am glad to read that Philip. When you first came on, you sounded like kind of a scarey guy. I thought maybe you were some kind of extremist from a strange place. Maybe some of your good mood will rub off on me. Glad you have been blessed with children and grandchildren. I am more serious (maybe too serious at times) and have been told I need to lighten up. However when discussing religious and biblical truth, one needs to be serious.

Philip Saenz,
“It was the Holy Catholic Church that compiled the Holy Bible at Carthage in the year 397 Anno Domini.” 
That council did approve and give their expression to what was already agreed was an accomplished fact.  Prior to 397, various church leaders did at some point pronounce which books comprised the Canon of the New Testament. Because of the existence of heretics in the early centuries, such as Marcion, who was setting up his own canon of Scripture, it was decided necessary that the church develop a list of books that should comprise the New Testament.  The most important test was could it be historically verified of apostolic authorship or influence and the universal consciousness of the church guided by the Holy Spirit.  It was not a matter of a council in 397 suddenly receiving a revelation from God on what was the canon.  What came to be considered as canon was a long process over several centuries during which a universal consciousness of the church believers developed by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Joe,
Jesus said “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 What does that mean to you Joe? Any ideas?

Claiming that the Son of God, Jesus, appears in the form of a host, is limiting God. This blurs and hides the true God which cannot be contained or held in men’s hands or limited in any way. “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;” Acts 17:24
Rather than thinking of God as being contained in a small piece of bread and carried about my men to be dispensed at their will, it is much better to discern God as he is described in His Word, the Holy Bible. He is a much greater God, infinite in fact. The Bible tells us the Spirit of God is everywhere. We cannot hide from him. “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:” Acts 17:29,30. God our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, is not dispensed by sinful men to those who wish to have Him and own Him as their Lord and Saviour. Jesus said in many places, in the Gospel of John for example, it is by simple faith that we have access to Our Lord. Those who are in Christ by God’s grace through faith, have all the promises of God, including forgiveness of sin, and may rest in the knowledge He has promised He will never leave us nor forsake us. We are not dependent on select group of men to dispense our Lord to us through their ministerings. The Reformation brought out the biblical truth that access to God is open to everyone who will believe and worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Wayne,

I don’t think you or MK are really listening to what I posted and the scriptural support I gave.

First you say you can’t keep up, that you haven’t read everything I have posted, (earlier you said you didn’t have time to read the Scriptural Evidence that I linked to) and now you say the PAM AND I are not reading what you write???  I have read everything you have posted.  And I have answered everything you have said.  YOU are the one that does not address what we put up.  You have not posted a single thing that refutes the Bread of Life Discourse, except for opinions, both yours and published authors.  I have said any number of times that it isn’t either/or and none of you has responded. 

I believe you are avoiding the real issues because you have no answers.  As I said,  I know it is hard to be confronted with proof that your beliefs are wrong…it can rock your world…but pretending we aren’t reading or addressing what you’ve written is dishonest.  Just admit you don’t have any answers.  What good does it do me to lay out an argument, backed up by scripture, only to have you ignore it.  EVERY point that you counter with is addressed in that link.  Instead of simply reading it, you make me answer each objection individually.  You claim you don’t have time to read that link, yet you spend twice that amount of time arguing exactly what that link addresses.

Are you serious about this or not?  Perhaps you didn’t realize that you would be bumping up against Catholics who know there faith.  Maybe you thought this would be a drive by and you could just come here, drop a few lines that caused us to doubt and move on.  But you were wrong.  We know what we believe,  we know WHY we believe it and we are more than prepared to defend it.  The stereotype that Catholics don’t read scripture and blindly follow the Pope is a myth, as you are finding out.

BS,

The incarnate Messiah ended at the cross.  Intentional avoidance of biblical and historical data points reflect poor theology.

Reaaaaaaaly????  He just went up to Heaven and ceased being Human?  I’ll just add that to you list of heresies.  And where in Scripture does it say that after He ascended into Heaven He packed Him Humanness in a trunk for a rainy day?  Where does it say He UNincarnated?

Wayne,

Rather than thinking of God as being contained in a small piece of bread and carried about my men to be dispensed at their will, it is much better to discern God as he is described in His Word, the Holy Bible. He is a much greater God, infinite in fact.

I’ll ask you for the 9th time…why does it have to be either/or?  Why can’t God be physically present in the form of Bread and Wine for our nourishment AND be spiritually present everywhere?  Why can’t He be inside each of us, outside each of us, outside of time, inside of time, and in the species of bread and wine, all at the same time?  It is you, not us, that are limiting God’s power when you say that if He is present in Bread and Wine, then He cannot also be present in each one of us, and all the world at the same time.

So tell me, why does it have to be EITHER/OR?

MK,
I read the page completely just now which you gave a link to at:
http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Table_of_Shewbread.htm
called the Table of Shewbread.
I did not read all the other pages about various associated topics which are linked to this page. I am not about to start reading books of information or tons of other information on other pages linked to this one.  If you have a point to make, you should make it on here (which you have been doing).
However, I examined this page you gave carefully. I am not sure what the point of this is. I don’t see anything in it which lends support to your claim of the transubstantiation or claimed real presence.

MK,
“So tell me, why does it have to be EITHER/OR?”
Because, if the doctrine of transubstantiation is false, then the “host” is no more the body of Christ than any other piece of bread. If the soul and divinity of Christ are not present, that the worship of it is pure idolatry. This then would be similar to the pagan tribes which have their idol cupboards.  Jesus’ words “This do in remembrance of me” show this was not some kind of magical operation, but mainly a memorial, instituted to call Christians throughout time to remember the Lord’s death and His shedding of blood for the sins of His people. We (Protestants) believe Jesus’ words in John chapter six were meant figuratively, not literally, and symbolized believing in Christ. For centures the RC people partook of both the bread and the wine; then after eleven centuries, the practice of permitting the priest to drink the wine on behalf of the people began to creep in. In 1415 the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to the people.  This was confirmed by the council of Trent (1545-1563), and that practice has continued to this day. The reasons given by the priests were that someone might spill the cup. (Note the disciples might have spilled some too but Jesus did not withhold it from them and such a flimsy reason) nad secondly the priests said the body and blood is contained complete in either the gread or the wine, although the Bible makes no suggestion of that.  So for the first twelve centuries people received the communion under both bread and wine and then in then from the Council of Constance in 1415, it was officially denied to give the wine to the laity.

MK,
“Why not either or”
The basic principle of biblical christianity is that the individual can go directly to God and believe and receive Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Saviour. In the RC system, one must go to a priest to receive Jesus as for example in the communion service, or by the various sacrament. God and God’s grace are dispensed to the people through the seven sacraments. Therefore a group of select men control the dispensing of God and God’s grace to people. One of the principles of the Reformation is the return to apostolic christianity whereby it is the right of the individual to go directly to God in prayer apart from the mediation of any priest or other human intermeddiary. That is why the interpretation of the John chapter six is very important. The RC interpretation puts the power of dispensing Jesus (Son of God) in the hands of men. While we believe Jesus’ words were not meant literally, but were metaphorical for believing in Jesus Christ. Depending how one interprets the Bible on this issue and other doctrines determines whether one’s religion is one of freedom of conscience of the individual to believe and interpret the bible as one believes the Holy Spirit is teaching it or one must surrender individual freedom of conscience and worship to the claims of a special class of men within a church hierarchy who control every aspect of one’s religion.

mk, I agree with you. God can appear as a child, infant, man, burning bush, dove, tongues of fire, and now as a piece of bread, the Holy Eucharist. Sorry, but I’m always in a hurry. That’s why I will not elaborate. Mk, I believe you’re intelligent. I know many more things because I have had many experiences in the supernatural. God bless you and all the others.