Ten Protestant biblical scholars interpret the "rock" of Matthew 16:18

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 23, 1999

Answers

Surely it must be Peter . Peace - Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 24, 1999.

Lane, as always your posting is very much interesting. I have printed and also translated it for friends who were shaking on the biblical basis for the primacy of PETER. Some of them have already commented that your post helped them greatly to reach more firmness in their faith. Tank you in their name.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), July 11, 1999.


Peter may be your "ROCK", but my "ROCK" is the foundation upon which truth is built.

Deut. 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

II Samuel 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

II Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

II Samuel 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

Psalms 18:2 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.

Psalms 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

I Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Luke 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Your "Rock" is a foundation of man, a succesively stacked tower of Babylon. A rock hewn by traditions of man trying to reach God by other means not of the truth of the word of God. A tower which causes confusion.

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), July 11, 1999.


Michael, You are right ! Jeus is the Rock of our salvation, however, when Jesus told Peter "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" Jesus was not refering to Himself, but to Peter and Peter's confession of faith. He saw in peter an immovable Rock that would sustain His church on earth, which included three things (Word, sacraments and apostalic tradition) Without these the church dies or it starts becoming its own god. Look around! The reason the church prevails against the gates of hell is because of God and these three gifts not what people think saves them like the false churches.

-- Pamela (rosylace@aol.com), July 11, 1999.

In keeping with Pamela's thoughts I would like to add Christ accended into Heaven to return one day to judge the living fromthe dead. Some human person had to be given the responsibily of continuing His work.

Again and again the sadness of the Luther/Reformation tragedy has been pointed out by members of this Catholic site. It is likened to a Greek Tragedy that is getting headliners OFF BROADWAY.

Attended a non Catholic service recently and I returned home saddened for it felt truly like a simile of what I experience every time I attend mass and that is the true presence of Christ in transubstantiation. He arose He lives He is here among us in spirit.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 12, 1999.



Attended a non Catholic service recently and I returned home saddened for it felt truly like a simile of what I experience every time I attend mass and that is the true presence of Christ in transubstantiation. He arose He lives He is here among us in spirit.

I know what you mean, Jean. I was raised a Methodist, and when I attend Methodist services, or other Protestant services, the most obvious thing about them is what they lack: the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrifice and in the Blessed Sacrament.

I cannot help but feel that Protestant churches are thus empty even when they are filled with people, and that Catholic churches are fulfilled even when no people are there.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 08, 1999.


To All:

I suppose many will find me "simple", but that is the way I like to be :o] I have no hatred or anger toward my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, even though I myself am Protestant, perhaps it's my age. I am growing up in a generation that cares little about titles, rank, and traditionalism I care more about the truth than anything else. I am at peace where my studies and the guidance of the Holy Spirit have taken me in pursuit of the truth, as I am sure the same is true for each of you! That is why we are where we are, believe what we believe and act as we act.

After reading these messages above I have sensed quite a bit of hostility toward people of unlike minds, I don't think this is the Spirit of Christ. I personally do not believe the Roman Catholic view point of Matthew 16:18, not because of any bias against anyone, I believe what I do because this is what I honestly believe the Holy Scriptures to say and mean, just as you are convinced as to what you believe it to say. This is not an issue, in my mind, to fight over amongst each other, we can disagree agree-ably. There are other issues under attack today by other groups outside of our Christian faith that pose a greater threat to essential doctrine.

As I said before, I am a simple person, I usually will attempt to focus on our commonalties rather than our differences. Our common ground is so much greater than our differences that we should be able to come together as Christians should and win the world to Christ!

As to each of your experiences within the Protestant Church and your feeling of emptiness; we ALL feel this way when we attend an unfamiliar service that takes us out of our comfort zones. You may want to ascribe this to some evidence that the presence of Jesus Christ is missing, I would attribute this to how each of us feel when we are surrounded by people who do not worship like us. When we are in our own Church service we can lower our defenses, focus not on whether the homily is Scriptually sound but on the Savior and His great love for us. This provides one of the greatest experiences in life.

We are more similar than you all would like to admit, but I will never throw stones at anyone because they choose to worship the Savior in a different manner, if indeed they are actually worshipping Emmanuel.

Do I feel it is important as to whether Jesus is building his Church "on" Peter or "on" the revelation of Jesus as The Christ, Emmanuel, God with us? Obviously, but will I allow it to lessen my resolve to be a disciple of Christ by loving my brothers in Christ? Never! Overall, in this whole discussion WE have ALL failed to mention that the emphasis in this Scripture is that it is JESUS who is building HIS Church! As well as the fact that the gates of Hell can not prevail against us!

It is getting late and I must go, please receive this message in the spirit with which it is intended, I do not presume to teach anyone here, but to respectfully and humbly contribute wellbeing to the fellowship of believers.

Sincerely,

-- Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.


Barry - Recently and currently I have become involved with a hospital pastoral care team which is headed by a Protestant Chaplain. She is a very open and gracious human being.

What I have sensed in the group of 24 five being Catholic is the Catholics of which I am one of are repressed in their Joy Of Loving Christ. They celebrate their faith as if it were a funeral. So much growth yet to be had in this area.

As A Franciscan I gave up the strictness of the Institution and attempt to live the live of a Chrsitian unashamed to express the lvoe of Christ through being a simple man and able to laugh and hug and all the rest of " living with Christ " in the here and now.

Peace And WEll Being - A Little Brother In Christ

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 19, 1999.


Barry, your thoughts on "can't we all just get along" are not entirely biblical. Yes , of course, all mankind should get along concerning moral laws(commandments 6-10), but religious beliefs should never be intermixed freely. I am sure you are familliar with the story of Ezekiel while he looks through the hole in the wall? What does he see? .....People of different religous beliefs "getting along" God did not seem to think to highly of it.

Maybe what we all need to get along on is , what is worshipping in vain?

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), October 19, 1999.


To: Michael (non-catholic)

I have been reading a lot of these messages on these threads to catch up on what I have been missing over this past year. I cannot remember exactly where I read it but was under the impression that you are a follower of Russell. I could be wrong and hope I am, but as far as your last statement it is apparent to me that you are limited in your understanding of Christianity. First, Christianity (although called a religion by the worlds standards) is not a "religion", it is a Faith. The difference you ask? Religion is mans attempt to reach God (all the religions of the world), Christianity is God reaching out to man. This is what separates Christianity from every other belief "system". Man could never reach God, but in his feeble mind has attempted to do so by all types of works and means, thus all the religions of the world. Christianity is God (Jesus Christ) coming to earth to reach man, man in all his "works" can never reach God, that is why Christianity is a Faith and not a Religion (a system of works to reach God). We could never reach God by anything that we could do. Now many forms of Christianity will attempt to teach people they must perform some type of work, but Christianity in it's basic teaching is a faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross taking the punishment of our sins. Thus when you say:

"What does he see? People of different religous beliefs "getting along" God did not seem to think to highly of it. Maybe what we all need to get along on is , what is worshipping in vain?

It is apparent to me you do not understand Christianity and the teachings of the Bible or Jesus Christ! This is another clue as to why I think you are probably a follower of Russell, people get all confused in their minds while listening to his teachings and have an improper view of Jesus Christ and Christianity.

The Roman Catholic belief is not another "religious" belief, it is a Faith in Jesus Christ as Savior the same as mine. We are Christian, followers of Jesus Christ, One Body, His! At least this is how the Lord views our world, and how I choose to view my brothers and sisters. It does not matter to me if they choose to worship in silence, with drums and pianos, choirs or organs. If Jesus Christ is declared Lord, most everything else is secondary. This is my understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and if I am wrong please correct me.

You see this is not the case with any other "religion", Jesus is not LORD. He is made to be anything and everything else but eternal God. And if this is the case you present you are correct, I could not "get along" with them, they would not be believers. I can, however, get along with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters because I will not allow secondary issues to cloud the main issue, we all claim Christ as Lord and Savior.

I have already gone on longer than I wanted, I guess I am attempting to make myself clear, I hope I have done so without getting too preachy.

One last thought I did want to express to Jean for his last message, I appreciate your honesty and openness. It has been my observation that we as Protestants should observe Communion more often than we do. The Roman Catholic Church has done an outstanding job leading by example in this area.

Sincerely,

-- Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.



To understand Catholicism, read the Catholic Catechism. I am an ex- Catholic, and the views are pretty well laid out in the Catechism.

-- Bill Jensen (billj9931@hotmail.com), February 09, 2001.

Dear Mr. Jensen, If you are aware of the ''views'' of the Church, according to the catechism, can you tell us why you're an ex-Catholic? Does it mean you didn't share the same views?

What views didn't you share?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 09, 2001.


Bill,

I second Eugene's request. If you've read the catechism, what made you STOP being a Catholic? I'd suprised it didn't make you return.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 10, 2001.


The Word, the Word's God. "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us." He was God, and the Word, the Word, Christ, in you--a discerner of the thoughts and the intents of the heart. Oh, sleeping church, rise. Ministers, shake yourselves. The hour is here. Flee from these towers of Babel to the cross. It'll fall one of these days. "Every plant that My heavenly Father hasn't planted will be rooted up. But upon this rock I'll build My church, and the gates of hell can't shake it down." Exactly I'm so glad.

A spiritual revelation--the whole Church is built on revelation, upon this rock. The Protestant says He built it upon Christ. The Catholic said, "Built upon Peter..." Both wrong. He built it upon Peter's revelation of Who He was. The great main revelation always is Who Jesus Christ is. The Book of Revelation, which is the revelation of Jesus Christ, opens with that very thing, to show the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ. "I am He that was, and which is, and shall come, the Almighty"--the first of all revelations. Yes, the revelation... "Upon this rock I'll build My church. I don't care how many persecutions, how many lines they draw and cut you out, I'll build My church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it." That's right.

Shows all the gates of hell will be against it, but could not prevail. "I'll build My church," the Holy Spirit moving, working, the resurrected Christ moving. Who can stop it? Try it. You never be able to do it. It's going right on, and on, and on. Rise all the critics you want to, it'll only strengthen the church every time you do it: going to move on.

When God has made Him known to you as a Person, as your Saviour, as your God, as your Redeemer, as your Healer, as your King, that's Who the--how the spiritual revelation comes. He built It upon the revelation of Who He was.

-- William (prophet@email.com), February 10, 2001.


Jmj

I'm sorry, William, but you don't have it quite right.
You wrote: "The Protestant says He built [the Church] upon Christ. The Catholic said, 'Built upon Peter...' Both wrong. He built it upon Peter's revelation of Who He was."

You need to consult the information at the link provided by Lane Core, who started this thread in June of 1999. The lower 3/4 of his linked page is a section entitled, "The correct (that is, Catholic) position, as explained and defended by numerous Protestant biblical scholars." There you will see that one modern Protestant bible scholar after another after another expresses agreement that St. Peter (Kefa, in the Aramaic Jesus spoke) is the Rock (Kefa).
[In the Greek of John 1, Galatians 2, and 1 Corinthians 1, St. Peter is referred to as Kephas -- from Aramaic Kefa (Rock). We see "Cephas" in English Bibles, but it should actually be spelled Kephas, since the first Greek letter is hard (Kappa), not soft (Sigma).]

It is all right for a Christian to say that St. Peter's proclamation was solid rock (as St. Augustine wrote), so long as the Christian also acknowledges that St. Peter himself was the Rock on which Christ built his Church (as St. Augustine also wrote).

St. James, pray for us. O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 10, 2001.



Confused children looking for God in words and thoughts, the Lord of Hosts is the death of both. True worship lies in perpetual awarness (not cognition) of God, doctrines are just a vehicle for ariving at that state. Remmember what jesus revealed about the heart of the ten commandments, love God with all you mind heart and soul, and your brother as your self. Depend on no icon or the absence of an icon (which is an icon of sorts) love blindly and always, Become love! who is brave enough to set aside babbling and disputes, not many!

-- Tourville delerme jr (free-agent-christian) (tdelerme@hotmail.com), January 06, 2002.

Sir, --You sound oh so sophisticated for a lost lamb. When you are proud to sign yourself a ''free agent Christian'' you are admitting that you've left the fold of the Good Shepherd. In your wandering you take the risk of falling prey to wolves. Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd. His fold is the only church He founded on earth. The Holy Catholic Church. That is his sheepfold, whether you can accept it or not. There are no ''free agent'' Christians. These are merely sheep in need of a shepherd.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 06, 2002.

The tower of Babel was a place where everyone was under 1 language and 1 race. God broke them up into many races. In the hands of men, 1=a symbol of pride. If 1 organization is decieved all the members are decieved. Why was there a Protestant reformation>? Man including Apostle Peter is fallible. I am fallible. Anything that is built on man is fallible. When it is built on God it is infallible. Why are preists called father's when in the Bible it says to call no man upon the earth your father?? For one is your Father in Heaven. Why is the Pope called the "Holy Father" when Holy Father in the Bible is refered to as God? I am curious. In the Bible it says Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ that he resurrected from the dead, be baptized and thou shalt be saved. It is clear that in Jesus's earthly ministry, he set foot in a synagogue a few times, most of his preaching was done in the streets. Hows is the Bible interpretation done by the Pope or priest more credible than from Protestant ministers, reverends, pastors, etc. interpretations? Are we not all merely men? Setting up statues of saints and stuff, doesnt' that contradict one of the Ten Commandments, no graven image? Are some of the rituals done, after the tradition of men or God? The Jewish Faith preceded both Catholic and Protestantism, but is not Jesus the savior?? Did he not reform some old testament laws, such as animal sacrificing, because He paid the ultimate ransom for all? Sincerely, - - Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 10, 2003.

The Holy Spirit is the minister, Christ promised as after he leaves. He said if he did not go the Comfortor would not come. Excluding dogmatic views from both protestants and catholics, are we truly sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that the church was built on Peter? Weren't there other churches at the time before the church of Rome began? The Author of the Bible makes a lot of indications of people who are "first". Those who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first. Through a person's works proves one is saved by Jesus Christ because the love of God is in him. To enter into the Kingdom of Heaven one has to be born again, in spirit. works does not save. Faith is clinging onto something that cannot be seen nor proved. The Bible does show its feelings regarding divisions in the church through the letters, but was there a spot where those divisions were actually condemned, without taking scripture out of context? Where did it say anywhere in the Protestant or Catholic Bible's that those who are not in a church condemned to Hell? I'm not saying don't join a church, church is important for fellowship and supporting your walk with God. Someone said something about not feeling the presense of God in a Protestant church, well how come i've heard the same things about a catholic church? Jesus said He is the way the truth and the life, no one goes to the Father,but by Him, not a church. From what I understand church is suppose to support you and help you as a Christian to have fellowship, just like the apostles had fellowship with Jesus.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

Where in the Bible does it say there is no salvation outside any church. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ the spiritual rock which the church as the body of Christ is founded on. In many places in the Old testament, the Rock is and was God. How many rocks are there? In the Bible it says to prove all things and hold on to that which is good. Does it not? The Bible always explains itself. The Bible is the only for sure source to ameliorate any biasness from both catholic and protestant dogmas. I don't want to confuse anybody, I am a Protestant like all non catholic denominations. By the way you can be baptized by water and not baptized by the Holy Spirit. God is everywhere and hears and sees all things. He is omnipresent. Alpha and Omega. Do you not think that He knows my heart and yours as well? Praise the Lord Jesus Christ, I can tell you first hand my life has truly changed beyond what my imagination is capable of. To all my fellow bros in Christ Jesus, you are the light of the world. Go and spread the Gospel and baptize in the name of the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit. The true worshippers worship in spirit and in truth. Jesus loves you.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

You say Protestant views of Catholics are skewed. Do you ever think Catholic views of Protestants are skewed as well? May the Counselor lead us to all truths. Sorry for writing so much, i really felt like spilling it today.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

In St. Matthew 18:18 Jesus's says this to all his disciples "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." He didn't just say this to Peter only. Thus to all Christians. The two theifs that died on the cross's next to Jesus. The theif that belived on Him, was he not saved? Are we sure he was even baptized? Didn't Jesus say he was going to be in paradise with Him? Jesus saved him because he believed on Him. Romans:chp5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The part where the Bible says, faith without works is dead, is saying if you are a Christian and you are not doing the will of God, expressing love towards other people saved or unsaved such as giving to the needy, heal the brokenhearted, being compassionate, reach down to the lowly, homeless, the decieved, converting people, proclaiming, then your faith is dead faith because these are the works of the Holy Spirit which should be made manifest through you. Also remember ALL have sinned (Roman 5:12) All men and women. Remember salvation is a free gift(Romans5:18). Since both catholic and protestants believe the bible the most important if not the only source from which Christianity is based out of and divinely inspired, then my question is why not sola scriptura??? The scriptures were always there whether it was in book form or not. It harbors great power. How come I do feel comfort when reading the Bible, the red letters are Christ's saying? Rather than performing extra biblical practices that I'm not so sure was instituted to be a law of the New covenent? In Corinthians chapter 1:2 talks about a church at corinth, now does that mean there were churches before the begginings of the Catholic church? Paul says may there be no divisions, but Protestants hold the most fundamental doctrines same, so in that regard we are of the "same mind" and "judgement" except for the minor anomalies such as one believes in full body submersion during baptism. By the way no where in Corinthians does it ever condemn divisions to Hell. One would agree a divsion cause by a dispute over a false doctrine would be justifiable.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

Hi All.

"Jesus saved him because he believed on Him. Romans:chp5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

This has to be the strongest proof that we are saved by God's Grace through our faith in Christ. This puts "Works" on the back burner (pun?). Catholics may practice all the rituals and so on , but the real thing is faith.

rod

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.


Ah, but the real thing is not faith unless that faith is accompanied by works. Only then is faith real, because faith without works is dead. Can something dead be "the real thing" that allows us to enter eternal life? Read the end of Matt 25. Those who don't do works of charity go to hell. You can't get much more straightforward than that. And then there is James, who tells us straight out that "We are justified by our works and not by faith alone". The Word of God can't be much more specific than that, can it? It's pretty difficult to interpret your way around such clearcut passages. Which of course is why Luther tried to remove James from the Word of God. It is senseless to agrue about faith vs. works. There are multiple scriptures that emphasize the necessity of faith (these are the ones Protestants like to emphasize). And there are multiple passages that emphasize the need for works. Catholics don't pick and choose, which is why Catholics emphasize ALL these passages, and reach the only reasonsble conclusion that can be reached - BOTH faith and works are essential for salvation. And when two things are essential, it is meaningless to argue about which is MORE essential. Its like arguing about which is more necessary for health, a heart or a brain. If you are missing either one, you are dead. Works without faith are dead. They accomplish nothing. Faith without works is dead. It accomplishes nothing. Furthermore, faith produces works, and works build faith, so again it is meaningless to imagine having one without the other.

As for the identity of the Rock, a lot of people don't seem to realize that the apostle Simon was not called Peter until that very moment, and Peter is simply a derivation of the Greek word for Rock. Therefore the passage reads "Simon, thou Art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church". Again, it takes some pretty far-fetched interpretational contortions to avoid the obvious meaning of this statement. Unless you don't understand the meaning of "thou". If the second "Rock" in this sentence isn't the same as the first "Rock", then why on earth did Jesus change Simon's name to "Rock"? The common Protestant interpretations of such verses clearly show that they approach scripture as source of confirmation for what they have already chosen to believe, rather than as a source of what they believe. Such convoluted, far-fetched interpretations of straightforward passages are attempts to force scripture to coincide with what your founders have told you to believe. No honest reading of "Thou art Rock" could arrive at any reasonable conclusion other than the fact that Simon was the Rock, and that any subsequent reference to the Rock, especially in the same sentence, would obviously have to refer to Simon. It is one of the clearest passages in the Bible, except for those who for personal reasons cannot accept its clear and obvious meaning.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 11, 2003.


"Works", what kind of works does the Bible really mean, it did not mention traditions or rituals. Works as in serving others, helping the homeless, loving others, proclaiming the gospel, these are the fruits of the Spirit. ---much love-Andrew

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

The theif that was crucified next to Jesus, believed on Him. I don't think he did any works did he? And Jesus said he would be with him in paradise... God had mercy. It was faith. God is no respecter of persons, so thus faith in Christ is the compenent for salvation. Now as a christian you do works that others (unsaved) see and are inspired thus sparking an interest in them towards the christian faith. Works as I said that are of the Spirit, charity.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

Remember a work thats done in secret God will reward him or her openly!!

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

Works is something the Holy Spirit convicts you to do and take action. Works is the for sure sign the love of God is in you. something man cannot institute as a law and say it was from God. Every work will be tried with fire. Taking communion and being baptized are not the "works", but rather important symbolism to show dedication and submission to Christ.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 11, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

That's right - the sacraments are not the Biblical works required for salvation. Rather, they are sources of the grace which makes possible both the faith and the works which ARE required for salvation.

Also right - rituals and worship are not the works which scripture describes as necessary for salvation. Rather, they are expressions of the faith which scripture says is necessary for salvation, along with works.

And right again! - It is indeed works of Christian charity, as spelled out in Matthew 25, which are essential for salvation! So why do Protestants insist that such works are NOT necessary, when the Word of God clearly says they are? Matt 25 says those who do not perform such works "will go off to everlasting punishment". It says this without any reference to faith at all.

As for the thief on the cross, what saved him was a total acceptence of, and commitment to Jesus Christ, which means he accepted everything which such a commitment involves - namely a life of faith and good works. It was not his fault that he died before he could put that commitment into practice. Obviously one who lives a long Christian life is expected to produce more works, and to grow in faith more than someone who lives a short life. Also, people with greater talents and abilities are expected to produce more fruit than people who are incapacitated. Scripture makes that point repeatedly. The thief on the cross had a very short Christian life, and was rather incapacitated for the duration of it. But his commitment was still the same as that of any Christian, or he could not have been saved.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 11, 2003.


Actually, the good thief, known to Catholics as St. Dismas, confessed his sins from the cross, and received the grace of baptism by desire.

Since Christ instituted the Sacraments, we don't consider them to be empty rituals, nor "works." We have faith in Jesus Christ, and in the Sacraments which He bestowed upon His Church.

It is difficult for Protestants to accept some of our Sacraments as valid, because the Protestant churches only began splintering off from the Catholic Church around 1500 A.D. They do not follow the Sacred Traditions which the apostles handed down. They do have "apostolic succession," a single leader who can be traced all the way back to St. Peter, the first pope. So, it is easy for us to understand how Protestants can reject those things which Christ left to us. Still, by listening thoughtfully, studying carefully, and respecting one another, we should all grow in love, grace and understanding.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 11, 2003.


Sorry. That should read, "they do not have apostolic succession..."

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), March 11, 2003.

The following can be found at: http://www.catholicoutlook.com/rock2.html

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book "Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy" (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary:

"The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis." (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

"The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

John Peter Lange German Protestant scholar

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc." (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus Baptist author

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”" (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

"By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus." (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian

"The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community." (The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary

"The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)



-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 11, 2003.


Andrew says: "The true worshippers worship in spirit and in truth."

The Bible says that "The Church is the pillar of Truth."

Christ established a Church.

"On this rock, I will build My Church."

The Church was to be a visible, identifiable Church: like a city, built on a hill...a light on a lampstand...not hidden under a basket.

It was to have a leader: (to Peter) "Upon this rock, I will build My Church."

(to Peter:) "Feed My sheep," "Feed My sheep," "Feed My sheep."

The Church is to be guided by the Holy Spirit, (from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV)

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn't bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church's infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God's Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gotta run. Hope this helps some!

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 11, 2003.


Ooops. Sorry. The Bible does speak of traditions, also. Here's a helpful link. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), March 11, 2003.

Indeed the Bible does speak of tradition. But it also speaks of vain traditions and traditions of men.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

Dear Paul, When you said people who live a longer christian life are expected to do more, but it also says in scriptue that God is no respector of persons. God treats everyone equal. Also Protestants believe in doing good works, that reveal that the love of God is in you. That is the whole point of works, works out of obedience to Christ. ---Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

Dear Paul, When you said people who live a longer christian life are expected to do more, but it also says in scriptue that God is no respector of persons. God treats everyone equal. The Protestant churches I've been to believe in doing good works that are of the will of God that reveal that the love of God is abound. Works out of obedience to Christ. ---Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

If the first pope was Peter apointed by Christ, who is appointing the popes nowadays?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

fallible man. And it's done by a vote. Quite interesting, i don't think that happened in Jesus' time.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 12, 2003.

Hi All.

Your answers are very informative!

What I'm hearing is that we should do those works that are inspired. Those inspired works should be practiced without grandeur. But, mostly, it is our faith that should drive the work and not the other way around. Those works are reflections of God's teachings as shown by Jesus.

I hope this is what I'm hearing. It seems that when the smoke clears there is more confusion down the road.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.


Dear Andrew,

If you have two children, you treat them as equals. However if one of them dies while still a toddler and the other lives to adulthood, you expect that the one who lives longer will accomplish more in his lifetime. That isn't opposed to treating both of them equally.

The purpose of the cardinals meeting in closed session is to pray and discern the will of God for the next Pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This can take weeks inm some cases. They don't just show up at the polls, walk in and cast their vote. The Pope therefore is not elected by fallible man, but revealed by God to His Church. That doesn't mean the cardinals could not make a mistake. Selecting a Pope is not a doctrinal matter, and therefore is not protected by infallibility. But it is still a matter of the leaders of God's Church intensely seeking His holy will, not simply a matter of an election, and God respects that and provides the necessary guidance.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2003.


Dear Rod,

God does specifically inspire particular persons to do certain works, and it is important that we are doing those works which God is calling us personally to do. Some folks, especially new Christians, run around trying to do every good work in sight - running prayer meetings, attending bible studies, serving on every committee the church has, morning and evening worship services, missionary outreach, service projects - and before long they either burn out, or they settle down to the realization that different parts of the body are called to provide different services to the body, as scripture so plainly tells us, and no one person is called to provide everything. We need to pray for guidance so that we are actually doing those works God has called us to do, for a body without works is a body without faith, a lifeless, ineffectual body.

Yes, our faith drives our works, but our works build our faith. How can you grow in faith without doing anything? Even prayer and study are works. But also, interacting with other Christians in service projects, communal worship, church committees, etc. are an important means of growing in faith. That's why it takes both faith and works to make a complete Christian. Works without faith are mere humanitarianism, while faith without works is a dead thing, useless. That's why the scriptures provide us with so many teachings emphasizing the need for works, and also a great many emphasizing the need for faith. To personally emphasize one aspect to the exclusion of the other holds us back us from growing as Christians.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2003.


Hi Paul.

Once again, I have to say that I agree with your explanation of faith and works. I do find myself weighing the significants of the works others expect of me and the works that I should actually do. Of course, it depends highly on who is assigning those works for me to actually accept the duty. Presently, my works do involve learning as much as I can about the Bible, the Catholic Church, and living a moral life. Of course, my actions are motivated by my faith.

Paul are you just an ordinary man or an ordained man?(You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I have a gut feeling about you.)

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.


God is not the author of confusion. Men make it confusing.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

Dear Paul, When you said "Some folks, especially new Christians, run around trying to do every good work in sight", don't you remember mother theresa, a devout roman catholic who did many many good works in the sight of the world. The world thought good of her. So how can you say that? ----Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

Andrew, Hi.

Yes, men are the authors of confusion. My faith is in God, not men. But, there doesn't seem to be an escape from "doctrine", which eventually becomes man-made.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.


Please allow me to make a comment about Mother Theresa.

I don't believe that Mother Theresa did her work for the pure reason of getting to heaven or to please God. I think that her faith made it natural for her to do those things without premeditation. Her faith pleases God (no time limit) and her works followed. I believe that we should all do the same in that order. I don't think that there is anything wrong with what Mother Theresa did.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.


I agree with you rob

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 12, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Mother Teresa is an excellent example of just what I was speaking of - a mature Christian woman who, through her close relationship with God, had attained a clearly defined vision of her specific personal calling, and devoted her entire life to it. That is exactly what I was speaking of. If, in addition to caring for the poorest of the poor, she had attempted to pursue a wide range of other ministries, she would have ended up diluting her efforts and her energy, and ultimately being truly effective nowhere. It is a sign of Christian maturity to know where God wants you to be, and then to be there with your whole mind and heart and strength, just as she did.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2003.


"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" said Jesus John 3:16.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 13, 2003.

The point in the book of James, as well as the point with this classic text, is that salvation is not simply an academic or theoretical sort of thing. Rather, salvation inevitably leads to good works. James' point, essentially, is to wonder how a person can have faith without it having some rather significant imapact on one's life. Good works are the natural, inevitable consequence of grace. God taking up residence inside a believer (by means of the indwelling Spirit) cannot help but have rather significant impact on that individual's life.

James does not suggest -- and none of the other writers of scripture do either -- that one gains favor with God by what one does. Paul makes it quite clear that while grace will lead to good works, good works will never lead to grace; that in fact, grace is then excluded. (see Romans 11:6, for instance).

Other significant passages relating to the expression of salvation by grace can be found throughout the Bible. The passages in Romans you are doubtless familiar with. You might also profitably reread Galatians 3:1-6ff.

Additionally, the Old Testament illustrates that salvation is by grace through faith, rather than by works. As an example, consider what Peter had to say about Lot in 2 Peter 2:7-8, that he was a "righteous man". Yet, when one examines the story of Lot in Genesis 19, one is hard pressed to discover anything "righteous" in the sense of his "works": Lot resisted the idea of leaving Sodom, he offered his daughters to a mob to be raped, and ultimately he will get drunk and have sex with those daughters. If it weren't for passages like Ephesians 2:8-10, we would have a tought time understanding how Lot could be righteous. But thanks to that passage and others, we understand that our righteousness really isn't ours at all, but rather is Christ's in us.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 15, 2003.


Who is that man of sin son of perdition? Who is he that exalts himself above all that is God? Where is satan's seat?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 15, 2003.

What do you think about the 1999 Lutheran-Roman Catholic accord? Aren't protestants the separated brethen? Or as they said a long time ago, heretics?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 15, 2003.

That is correct. Good works do not lead to grace. Nor does faith lead to grace. Grace leads us to both the faith that produces works, and the works that build faith, both of which are essential to salvation. That is why we can say that salvation is by grace alone. By grace do we receive faith, and by grace are we inspired to works. Those who respond in works, but lack faith, are mere humanitarians, not Christians, and such works cannot save, for salvation is not of works. And those who achieve faith but lack works are, as James so clearly states, spiritually dead, and as Matt 25 so clearly states, therefore cannot be saved. This is why scripture so consistently reveals that you cannot be saved through works separate from faith, OR through faith separate from works. Faith and works are inseparable and co-essential. Lack of either one means loss of eternal life. But the genuine practice of either one can lead us to the other, because if we already have one, then we are receiving grace; and grace leads us to both, and thereby to salvation.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2003.

+bump+

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 15, 2003.

What about the lutheran-roman catholic accord in 1999? What are your incites on that?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 16, 2003.

In chapter 4 of saint Matthew. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness by satan while he was in the wilderness for 40 days and nights. Everytime satan tempted him, Jesus rebuked by saying "It is written". Obviously he knew his old testament scriptures. So based on his continuous reference back to the scriptures each time, isn't that an indicaation of sola scriptura?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 16, 2003.

What about it? Dialogue is always a step toward greater mutual understanding, and the event accomplished that. Neither church budged an inch on their beliefs. They both still believe exactly what they believed previously. But at least they have a better understanding of each other's beliefs, and found that on a few points their beliefs were closer than they had realized. That's one baby step on a hundred mile journey. Better than nothing.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 16, 2003.

I think we should all love each other. God is love.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 16, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Jesus answered in that form because Satan tempted Him in that form, trying to use the word of God against Him. Was Satan relying on sola scriptura? The fact that Jesus quoted the scriptures a few times certainly does not suggest that He considered the scriptures the sole source of truth. If that were so, He could not have taught anything that was not already taught in the Old Testament. Which would mean that everything He taught would therefore be redundant, and His teaching would therefore be unnecessary. He would have simply handed the apostles a copy of the Hebrew scriptures and said "read it". Instead He preached the fullness of truth that was lacking in the Old Testament scriptures. the Church therefore held this fullness of truth before they set it down in writing, and would have held it and taught it even if it never was set down in writing.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 16, 2003.


Yeah satan does know the scriptures it's true. As Jesus knew his scriptures well to rebuke satan, likewise we should know the scriptures for ourselves as well when satan comes and tempts us. Satan first questioned "If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread" and Jesus was the first to respond by quoting scripture "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", afterwards satan referred to scripture "If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up" How important is the Torah to the Jews? And I am not saying church isn't important, it is important. It's also important for us to know the scriptures for ourselves aswell. Jesus lived the life he did and not just hand them Hebrew scriptures in order to show the glory of God, to heal the sick, cast out devils, and most of all to die for our sins etc. These are the things that are recorded in the new testament, so there could be new testament scriptures. Or how else are we suppose to know the truth in hard copy rather than through the mouths of fallible men from generation to generation. How would we know that the "Church is the pillar of truth" if we had no scriptures to give account of that in the first place? Holymen of God wrote these scriptures. In St. Mark Chp1 verse 2 it writes "As it is written in the prophets, behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. As for tradition, as long as they are the traditions that the spostles established, it is definitely necessary those traditions. As a college student I really don't know what happened in the past, so the place where I can find answers is through scriptures and church, i.e christian small groups on campus for fellowship. The Bible is an important source in my daily life.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 16, 2003.

My protestant brothers always encourage me to go to church. Whenever I go home I go with my grandma to church. I go to church here on campus occasionally. How is an individual suppose to discern what the preacher says is false or true without knowing scriptures? How are we suppose to "beware of wolves in sheep clothing"? Again how are we suppose to discern false doctrine if we don't know doctrines ourself?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 16, 2003.

The preacher or pastor always uses the Bible as guide to give his sermons.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

The real question is "How is an individual supposed to discern what the preacher says as false or true when it is simply a matter of my opinion versus his, and neither of us has any real authority?" And therein lies the problem! In a situation where no-one has any more authority to interpret scripture than anyone else, there is bound to be endless disagreement over what scripture means, and since individuals are not ready to give up their personal interpretations, fragmentation is certain to occur as each individual takes those who agree with him, and starts a new denomination. Such a system is so distant from what Jesus wanted for His Church! He constantly spoke of truth and unity. Those two topics have to be considered together, for without unity you cannot have truth. Without unity you have dissention, and two dissenting beliefs cannot both be true. The reason there is no unity in Protestantism is that there is no real authority. They claim that the Bible is their only authority, but of course it is painfully obvious that it is actually their personal interpretations of the bible that each sect is really claiming as its authority. It's "what I think the Bible says IS what the bible says, even if ten other denominations on the same street think otherwise". Of course, each of those ten other churches makes exactly the same claim, and no one of them has any stronger claim to it than any of the others.

If Jesus really said that the truth would set us free, then He surely must have provided a means of knowing the truth with certainty. Personal interpretation of scripture obviously is not it, since it doesn't work. If He wanted us to have truth, He must have provided a way for us to have unity, because truth cannot exist in the absence of unity. We know Jesus wanted His Church to have unity because He prayed "Father, that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE". If He wanted us to have unity, He must have provided a source of genuine authority, for unity cannot exist in the absence of authority. Multiple scripture passages indicate that He gave authority to the leaders of His Church, and particularly to Simon Peter, the Rock on whom He built His Church, who alone was given the keys to the kingdom. This is still true today, and it still bears the same fruit today - unity and truth. Churches which have rejected the real authority Jesus placed in His Church, and who try to substitute a counterfeit authority, inevitably end up in disunity and untruth. Why is this so difficult for many people to see?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 17, 2003.


Dear Paul, It's funny that you should say that because some of the small groups on my campus consist of protestants and catholics that come together worship God.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

If a priest or pastor can learn to interpret the Bible through the Holy Spirit, why can't I. The divisions are indeed caused by man, but protestants hold the most fundamental doctrines the same. Name a difference between a baptist and a lutheran besides the name. Why do I feel like Jesus is talking to me through the red letters of the Bible? Why is it comforting? Thou shalt not steal means literally do not steal. St. Mark. Chp 13. verse.10 "And the gospel must first be published among all nations". The Acts chp17. verse.11. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they recieved the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Romans chapter 4. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." A lot of reference sugeesting scripture importance. Romans chp14.verse 11 "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." 1st corinthians chp3 verse 3"For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? Where does Paul condemn divisions? 1 corinthians chp11 verse 18-19 "For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Divisions were obviously happening back then already, but it is because of heresies. "As it is written.." is mentioned a lot of times in the new testament. 2nd corinthians chp11 verse 4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye recieve another spirit, which ye have not recieved, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. The main Protestant denominations preach the same Jesus. It is obvious that there were already divisions back in Paul's day, some caused by heresies and some caused by people who wanted to follow certain other people 1st corinth chp1 verse 12-13 says "Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?" Isn't this analogous to I am a lutheran, I am Baptist , I am a Methodist? This is due to being carnal. Paul obviously wants everyone to preach the same thing and be the same mind, but he does not condemn those divisions. The divisions that the Bible does condemn are the ones that are caused by or consist of false doctrinal stuff. May I ask, when did the catholic church offically begin? Roman persecution of Christians did not end until later, up until Constantine declared Christianity the official religion. 1st century Christians as I have come to understand were martyred by the Romans. False doctrine can indeed come from outside the church and from also within a church. If there is only 1 church there would be need of a split if false doctrine is involved. Right at the Protestant reformation former catholic martin luther saw a heresy, the selling of indulgences. Thus 95 thesis, which by the way I have read. Thus launched reformation and counter reformation. In the Protestant Bible the KJV the Epistle Dedicatory from the translators to King James reads this "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-concieted brethren, who run their own ways, and giving liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocnecy of a good conscience etc." These guys were speaking against the papists at that time, but also against the guys that run their own ways were not a part of the Church of England. But both were Protestants. I have much more to learn about history of both churches and I am going to take World Religion courses soon, so I will have a better idea of both Protestants and catholics. Perhaps I will one day attend a catholic service and see what it is really like, but maybe you should also attend a Protestant service and see what it is like as well. ---Sincerely Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

What exactly did Martin Luther actually reject about the church that he came out of?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

He certaainly did not reject Christ

-- Andrew (Amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

Divisions occur because we are merely still carnal beings with a carnal mind. This is the "dissentions" amongst the major grounded protestant denominations. I don't think either denominations make accusations that the other harbors false doctrines. Again I want to say that there are Protestant cults, we won't name any names, but they are out there, not really grounded into a church. These are the people that run their own ways. The major protestant denominations themselves warn of these people as well.

-- Andrew (Amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

Why was there a 1999 lutheran-catholic accord. Why do you want to have anything to do with the heretics?

-- Andrew (Amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Yes, this is a very curious thing indeed. Even though each Protestant denomination claims it has the truth, and even though each denomination realizes that the beliefs of other Protestant denominations conflict with their own, no denomination ever brings a charge of false doctrine against any other denomination. A Baptist can't call a Presbyterian a herectic, even though their beliefs are miles apart, because heresy means rejection of authoritative doctrine, and even though they both claim that the Bible is their "infallible authority", deep down they realize that if that were true they would not have conflicting beliefs. So, there is a sort of conspiracy of silence among the manmade denominations. To criticize the beliefs of another denomination, beliefs which were derived in exactly the same way as their own beliefs, would simply highlight the fact that their approach to doctrine is not valid, and cannot guarantee truth.

Even more curious is the fact that the various denominations, from their sad situation of dissention, division and doctrinal chaos, each feel qualified to take shots at the doctrine of the one true Church established by Christ, the only Church that is free of such chaos and division, and the very Church from which they received both the core of their beliefs, and the Bible in which they try so futilely to determine true doctrine. The facts speak for themselves. Which is why denominational Christians are so resistant to the facts. Once you know the facts, you have to either accept them or reject them. To reject them is essentially dishonest, and brings to light what they want to keep hidden - that their tradition provides no genuine authoritative teaching. But to accept the facts would call for a response that is just too terrible to think about - rejecting manmade religion and entering the Church Christ founded for all men. So they go through life with blinders on to ward off the facts, while clinging to the one small fragment of their shattered tradition where they can feel safe from the imposing threat of the fullness of truth - their denomination.

Divisions occur because we are merely still carnal beings with a carnal mind. This is the "dissentions" amongst the major grounded protestant denominations. I don't think either denominations make accusations that the other harbors false doctrines. Again I want to say that there are Protestant cults, we won't name any names, but they are out there, not really grounded into a church. These are the people that run their own ways. The major protestant denominations themselves warn of these people as well. -- Andrew (Amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why was there a 1999 lutheran-catholic accord. Why do you want to have anything to do with the heretics? -- Andrew (Amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 17, 2003.


Well, I can see the argument that catholocism was the first church, and I would definitely be for it. I can also see your arrgument that people would have different interpretations of the scriptures that lead to division. But I cannot see that the doctrine of honoring Mary, because that is unbiblical. If there was doctrine like that it would have definitely shown up in scripture. Was honoring Mary one of the "traditions" passed down by the apostles? I just cannot make sense of the church that puts much emphasis on mary. Christrianity should be just for Christ. And I do have a problem with the doctrine of purgatory as well, basically was Jesus's sacrifice not sufficient enough to cover our sins/? To me they seem like false doctrines. Well I don't know, can you fill me in?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

I am glad to see that you used the accurate term "honoring Mary", and not the erroneous term "worshipping Mary" which is so frequently tossed about. We live in a country which honors many deceased people who played an essential role in the development of our nation. That's why we have Presidents Day. Why would we not do the same for individuals who have played an essential role in the development of our Church? That's why we have All Saints Day. And what role (other then the role of the Savior Himself) is more essential then that of bringing the Savior into the world? We honor Mary not only as the mother of the Savior, but also as an incomparable model of a life of holiness and submission to the will of God - the way we are all called to live our lives. God honored Mary in a special and unique way even while she was alive, addressing her as "blessed among women", and revealing to her through the Holy Spirit that all generations would call her blessed. In response to that Biblical teaching, all generations do hold her in esteem, treating her as "blessed among women". Sadly, many who consider themselves Christians have rejected this important doctrine of original Christianity, along with many others.

Regarding Purgatory, this again is an original doctrine of Christianity, which all Christians held until a few hundred years ago. Doesn't that historical fact cause you any concern? Is it possible that all Christians from the time of the Apostles to the time of Luther were steeped in false doctrine? Is it possible that one renegade Catholic priest 1500 years after Christ was the source of Christian truth to the world, not Christ Himself and His Apostles? It is not true that this essential doctrine of Christianity denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, because all those who are in Purgatory are already SAVED by that very sacrifice. You don't get into Purgatory any other way! Purgatory is not something in addition to Christ's sacrifice. It is a place where those who are already saved by the complete and sufficient sacrifice of Christ undergo final purification before entering into heaven. Catholics reject the Calvinist notion that Christ's sacrifice "covers over" our sins, and allows us to be "smuggled" into heaven, even though we are still impure, like "dung heaps covered with snow". Catholics believe that Christ's sacrifice actually MAKES us pure and holy, to the extent that we accept it and allow it to influence our lives. It doesn't just hide the hideousness of our sin - it REMOVES it, so that we may approach the throne of God genuinely "pure and blameless" as the scriptures indicate. I'm sure you will agree that some Christians give themselves to Christ more freely and completely than others do. In persons who can truly say "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me", like Saint Paul or Mother Teresa, the sacrifice of Christ can have its greatest effect. But in those who walk the fence, putting up barriers to grace, honoring Christ when it is convenient, or holding onto some small areas of sin in their lives, the saving grace of Christ, while complete and sufficient in itself, may not be sufficiently received in the life of the individual person. Such persons then, while they may be followers of Christ, are in need of additional purification, since as scripture tells us "nothing unclean can come into His presence".

Now Andrew, I wonder if you could offer an explanation for one of your beliefs, which I consider unbiblical. You repeatedly state that you consider this or that Catholic belief to be "unbiblical". Of course that term can have two different meanings. It can mean "contrary to what is taught in the Bible", or it can simply mean "not specifically taught in the Bible". In any case, you apparently believe that all Christian teaching must come directly from the Bible. If that is a true belief, then that belief itself surely must be clearly stated in the Bible. Otherwise I would have to conclude that your insistence on specifically biblical beliefs is in itself an unbiblical tradition. Therefore, please share those passages of scripture which indicate to you that the Bible is the only acceptable source of Christian truth. Thanks.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 17, 2003.


Well Paul, Nothing the church does should contradict the Bible at least right? Mary was blessed, fine but even by honoring her is something external to Jesus's teaching in the Bible. Where does it say to honor her? God is no respecter of persons. Does God love her more than he does you or me? Why wouldn't these "important" traditions be in scripture rather than have the people trust in men? People before Martin Luther had they known the scriptures for themselves would have discerned and not be ignorant. This sounds like a paradox, my friend who is catholic has a picture of Mary in her house and no picture of Jesus. Why is that? The doctrine of indulgences, um if Martin Luther hadn't stepped up, everyone would still be catholic, now would the indulgences over time been incoporated into the church and considered tradition, despite being created by man? When you say it was about 1500 years of the Catholic church up until Martin Luther, well it was about 4000 years of Judaism until our savior came into this world. Like I said, catholicism came first so naturally we would assume it to be the true church, but I'm still not buying into the various doctrines of praying to saints and honoring Mary and stuff. It's called CHRISTianity, so it should be based on Jesus alone and the traditions that he truly taught, not man made ones. All will bow down to Jesus. So basically, only the priests can interpret scripture you say because they are the ones with the theological background and training? Well how about all the Protestant ministers that have also gone through Bible College and have studied the scriptures diligently themselves as well? I understand the concept of purgatory and what it entails, but I'm still not convinced, because when it all comes down, you are ultimately saying that the blood of Jesus did not cleanse you completely. Well I don't know truly what happened in the past and either do you. We can only take it by Faith. As for the apocrypha, I don't really know, I've heard a lot of people talk about it, but one day I hope to read it myself. Is it true that there is no Hebrew translation of the apocrypha? ----Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

Why would the scriptures say "prove all things and hold on to that which is good"?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 17, 2003.

St. Matthew chp12 verse 48-50 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, 'who is my mother? and who are my brethren?' And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said,'behold my mother and my brethren! Fo whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." So my questions goes back again, was the Mary involvement in Christian tradition truly set up by Jesus? Or was it man made?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 18, 2003.

Do the Jewish people accept the doctrine of purgatory? If purgatory was a last minute cleansing, then does it apply to them before Jesus came? The theif that was crucified next to Jesus that believed on Him, Jesus said he was going to be in paradise with Him, was purgatory mentioned? What are your incites on that? - - - - Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 18, 2003.

Hebrews chp 10 verse 26- "For if we sin wilfully after that we have recieved the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 18, 2003.

Hewbrews chp10 verse 16-19 "THis is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquites will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 18, 2003.

Hi Andrew.

I read the Scriptures everyday. I also read both Catholic and non-Catholic commentary. More and more as the days pass, I find it difficult to accept the Catholic Doctrine as inspired by God. I have to follow what I believe to be the truth and continue to question that which does not sound like the truth. Your comments and questions are the very ones I have. I believe we share a common truth and I hope that the Church would finally come clean with a doctrine that is more conforming to the Scriptures--Jesus.

If I follow the Catholic Doctrine, I'm pretty much damned to Hell. Or, at the very least, I would always doubt my salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:10 puts salvations and works in their proper place. Basically, we are saved by Grace through Faith and our workers will be rewarded. Our works are secondary, whether good or bad works.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.


Dear Rod,

What could possibly cause you to "find" that the beliefs all Christians held in common for the first 1,500 years of Christianity are "not inspired by God"? That is equivalent to saying that Christianity itself is not inspired by God! And if original Christianity was not inspired by God, then how could manmade offshoots derived centuries later from that same "uninspired" Church possibly end up inspired?? Especially considering that that one original Church was united in common belief, and still is, while the many offshoots conflict with one another at every turn. Could such a situation of conflict and confusion be inspired by God? It is of course good that you read the scriptures daily, as many Catholics likewise do, and all Christians should; but it is also very apparent that doing so is not the key to truth, for members of each and every one of the thousands of conflicting denominations read the scriptures daiy, yet they hold conflicting beliefs, supposedly derived from exactly the same text. And real truth cannot conflict with real truth. Every person has to follow what they believe to be the truth. However, there has to be an authoritative source for deciding what is true and what is not. Since reading the Bible cannot be that source, what is? Jesus did not say to believe what "sounds like truth" and to reject that which does not "sound like truth". He said that whatsoever is taught as binding teaching by the Church He founded is guaranteed to be true. He said that he who listens to the Church listens to Him. This is the Word of God. The Word of God says that the Church He founded is "the pillar and foundation of truth", without which the truth cannot stand. A Christian has to decide whether he is going to accept and believe the Word of God or not. The "pick and choose" approach adopted by the Protestant tradition just doesn't cut it. Jesus didn't tell us to decide what "sounds right", and then to search the scriptures for isolated verses that appear to support what we have already chosen to believe. An honest approach to Christian life demands that we firmly hold EVERYTHING the Word of God says about a subject, not looking for passages to back up our interpretations, but rather refusing to accept anything that conflicts with ANY scriptural truth. 2 Corinthians 5:10 does not "put salvation and works in perspective". This is but a single isolated passage which, taken out of context, can be interpreted to support your preconceived notions regarding salvation and works. But there are many passages relating to that important subject, and when you look at the totality of scripture, as the Catholic Church always does before defining a doctrinal belief, you find that the ideas which attracted YOU to that one isolated passage are not supportable by scripture as a whole. Since the Word of God cannot be modified to fit our beliefs, our beliefs then must be modified to fit EVERYTHING the Word of God reveals. There are certainly many passages which emphasize the necessity of faith for salvation. Catholics embrace them all. There are also many passages which emphasize the necessity of works for salvation. Catholics also embrace all of these. Why wouldn't we? The Bible is a Catholic book, compiled by Catholics, for Catholics, so it cannot contain anything contrary to Catholic teaching, unless the Catholic Church, in compiling the Bible, intentionally included writings which conflict with its own teachings. Is that likely? Among the many passages indicating the essential nature of works for salvation are these:

"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14)

"Are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" (James 2:20)

"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26)

"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:45-46)

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds" (Matthew 16:27)

"... the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds." (Romans 2:6)

"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds." (Revelation 20:12-13)

Without works, the Word of God tells us, our faith is nothing. It is dead, useless, non-saving. Over and over He tells us we will be judged on our works .. on our deeds .. on our actions. Matthew quotes Jesus Himself as saying that those who don't do good works will go to Hell! Is there some way He could have made this clearer?

We do share parts of a common truth, Rod. But the fullness of that truth can be found ONLY in the One True Church founded By Jesus Christ on the Apostles. In manmade traditions you will find only bits and pieces of the truth - those pieces which your human founders chose not to reject. The rest of Christ's truth remains hidden from you because your founders thought it didn't "sound right", or it conflicted with what they had already chosen to believe. The doctrine of the Catholic Church will never change. It cannot. It is divine in origin, and the Church is its steward. But it includes nothing that conflicts with the Bible, since the Bible was developed from Catholic teaching. Everything that is written in the New Testament was taught by the Catholic Church before it was ever written, and long before the Church compiled the Bible: and it will be taught by the Catholic Church until the end of time. Jesus said so, and His word is true. I don't think that following the same truths the Apostles followed will land you in Hell. If that's the case, Jesus was the Great deceiver, not the Lord and Savior of the human race.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 22, 2003.


Hi Paul.

Let me say that you are a very intelligent man and I respect your words and views.

I question all doctrine. I would also love to believe that the original Church has not changed. But, historical events and political issues do tend to cause change in people and their doctrine. I honestly believe that I should read between the lines of any doctrine in order for me to find the truth. My only source is God. God gave us the Bible. Therefore, every doctrine must conform to the teachings found in the Bible. Now, to find God's inspiration in a man would have to make me like Thomas; I want to see it and touch it to believe it. It is difficult enough to have faith in Christ and even more difficult to have faith in a mortal man. Mortals don't walk on water, make miracles, nor rise again after death.

I have found many references to "works" and I don't mean to use only one verse from 2Corinthians.

I wonder if you feel absolutely positive that you will be in Heaven? When I was a Catholic, I never could say that I was "saved". This made me feel as if I could never ever have a clean soul that would allow me into Heaven. My last chance would be in purgatory while others prayed for me. Do you have a feeling of walking around with a dark cloud over your head? That's the way I felt. I could never cleanse my soul enough. (Jesus cleansed our souls.) Now, that I am farther away from the Catholic Church I must face one of two facts: 1) I am finding the truth or 2) I will surely "die" for leaving the Church. Then, I remember that my struggles are about doctrine and not about Jesus Christ and God. But, ultimately, I will have to conform to God's doctrine.

Man! If I could be as strong in faith as you, Paul...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.


Hello Rod,

Thanks for your thoughtful and charitable response. If I may, a few responses to some of your responses ...

"I question all doctrine. I would also love to believe that the original Church has not changed. But, historical events and political issues do tend to cause change in people and their doctrine."

A: Of course people change. And therefore rules, regulations, disciplines, formats, schedules, etc. must change to meet the needs of a changing population. What cannot change is truth. If truth changes it becomes untruth. If the Holy Spirit allowed that to happen in the Church, the words of Jesus Himself - the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth - would become untrue. That's why Catholic doctrine never changes. It is founded on the Rock, and remains firm through every storm that passes. Protestant doctrine of course changes frequently, which is why it exists in so many varieties. It is founded on the shifting sands of human interpretation, and is not supported by any real authority. Apart from the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), the truth inevitably collapses.

"I honestly believe that I should read between the lines of any doctrine in order for me to find the truth."

A: I don't believe that Jesus would put us in such a difficult situation. He said the truth would set us free. He wants us to be free, so surely He must have made it easy for us to find the truth and know it with certainty, without "reading betewen the lines". He told His Church "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". I believe Him. He told His Church "He who hears you hears Me". I believe Him. Why would I try to second-guess the Church, or read between the lines of its teaching, when Jesus Himself has clearly said that the teaching of the Church is His own teaching! He also said "by their fruits shall ye know them". I look at the fruits of Catholicism - clear, unchanging doctrine, taught in unity for 2,000 years. then I look at the fruits of "reading between the lines" - 450 years of dissention, division, and doctrinal chaos. I don't have to look any farther than that to know where the truth can be found.

"My only source is God. God gave us the Bible. Therefore, every doctrine must conform to the teachings found in the Bible."

A: My only source is God. God gave us the Church. The Bible came later - almost four centuries later - and it came to us through the Church. We do believe that the Bible is specially inspired, and is the written Word of God. Therefore it is true that doctrines must conform to the teachings of the Church as expressed in the Bible. However, this does not mean that every belief and action must be specifically described in the Bible, because the Bible tells us that whatsoever the Church teaches is true! You cannot believe the Bible without looking to the Church for truth, because that is exactly what the Bible tells us to do! To look only to the Bible for truth is to ignore the plain teaching of the Bible. And to try to define truth based on one's own personal interpretations of the bible is likewise completely unbiblical. It's a tough pill to swallow, I know, but making the Bible the pillar and foundation of your truth means ignoring the plain truth of the Bible, and the fruit of that unbiblical tradition is as I described above - not the will of God for His Church.

"Now, to find God's inspiration in a man would have to make me like Thomas; I want to see it and touch it to believe it. It is difficult enough to have faith in Christ and even more difficult to have faith in a mortal man"

A: Not quite sure who you are speaking of here - the Pope? To find inspiration in a man, INSTEAD of in God, would put us in the Jim Jones category of "believers". But to make use of the resources God Himself has given us as means of drawing closer to Himself is the way God calls every Christian to live. Surely in coming to your faith in Christ, you have been "inspired" by certain preachers you have heard, or the writings of certain authors? Or even by other Christians you have personally known? Or known from a distance? I find Billy Graham inspiring. I doubt that your relationship with God is the result of simply sitting in your room alone and reading your Bible? This is one of the reasons God gave us the Church - the Body of Christ on earth - where each part supports and heals and teaches and admonishes and inspires every other part. The Pope is indeed a great source of inspiration to Catholics, and to many non-Catholics as well, because he is so obviously a holy man of God. But he doesn't take the place of God. He inspires us to come closer to God, not closer to himself. That is the work of an apostle. It would be much more difficult to have faith in God without the many human examples of people who have already done so. This is why we honor and thank the saints. "one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20)

"I wonder if you feel absolutely positive that you will be in Heaven?"

A: No Rod, I don't, because that 16th century tradition, while it sounds very comforting, is completely unbiblical, and I believe the Bible - all of it, not just selected verses. The Bible emphasizes that simply accepting Christ is not a guarantee of salvation. One must persevere in that commitment, day by day, until the end of our earth life. If we do so, THEN we will be saved. That's what the Word of God says on the subject ...

"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Matt 24:13)

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Mark 13:13) "but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)

"I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Paul knew he was not "saved". There was still the chance that he might "be disqualified", or as the King James has it, "I myself might be a castaway". He also knew that those he was writing to were not "saved", so he encouraged them to endure to the end, where salvation awaited them.

"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win." (1 Corinthians 9:24)

The prize is awarded at the end of the race, not while the runners are still running. Because there is always the chance that a runner may trip and fall, and never finish. Likewise there is always a chance, God forbid, that we might turn away and reject Him after first accepting Him, as many have done, and thus "be disqualified". Therefore no-one can presume to be saved while they are still alive on this earth.

"The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful (Matthew 13:20-22)

The wisdom of the Church tells us to pay attention to the wisdom of these Bible passages. Protestant tradition tells us we can ignore them, because once we accept Christ we are "saved". This is an extremely dangerous false belief.

"Now, that I am farther away from the Catholic Church I must face one of two facts: 1) I am finding the truth or 2) I will surely "die" for leaving the Church"

A: Whatever truth you find outside the Church ultimately came from the Church, since the Church was the only place such truth existed for 1500 years after Christ. So why not go to the source, rather than settling for the bits and pieces that have filtered down into your tradition? A central fact to keep in mind - truth cannot conflict with truth. Consider that fact not as it pertains to Protestant vs. Catholic beliefs, but as it pertains to the Protestant system itself. Whether you are "lost" by leaving the True Church is between you and God. He alone is the judge of men's hearts. You are obviously seeking the truth, which is far more than many people do. Jesus said "seek and you shall find". It has been my experience that Protestants who actively seek the truth, rather than simply settling for whatever their current pastor preaches in Sunday morning, frequently find their way home, for what they are seeking cannot be found anywhere else.

God bless you on your journey.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 23, 2003.


Hi Paul.

Thank you very much for your reply. Once again, you have opened my thinking to things that have stared me in the face but I couldn't quite understand.

I've been attending a non-Catholic service and listening with footnotes in the back of my Catholic mind trying to compare everything I've been learning. There are similarities, but those similarities are not my real concern. The basic difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is my real issues. I cannot say that I believe as a true Protestant probably because I still have Catholicism deeply rooted in me. Although, it does seem easier to follow the non-Catholic doctrine, it seems too easy as if something is missing. I remember those little comments, "sin all you want because there is always confession". I guess the same could be said of Protestanism, "sin all you want because once saved always saved". As a Protestant, one tries to stay away from sin and do "works" in order to win one's rewards while Catholics do the same in order to win one's salvation. Of course, both are justified by faith. I guess what I'm really trying to figure out is which of these basic doctrines is true. If and when I know for sure that the Catholic Doctrine is the way to go, then every ritual, relic, and saint will become acceptable to me. But, for now, I'm still digging for answers. I figure that if I should be a Catholic I must accept all of the Church Catechism (presently,some I simply cannot accept). Yes, I know that somethings just don't come easy and conveviently.

Here is something relating to the original posting:

I bought a video produced by Father Patrick Peyton, CSC, 1985. I presume that Fr. Peyton has the endorsment of the Pope.

The title of the video is "The Master: The Life of Christ". Briefly, the story begins with Christ being brought down from the cross, resurrection, Day of Pentecost, Ascension, The Ascension of Mary, and Peter the "Rock".

The story doesn't mince words when referring to Peter the "Rock". I found it very interesting that the character of Peter was portrayed like the Pope in mannerism. Also, the apostles discussed amongst themselves that Peter was to have authority over them. Obviously, most non-Catholics would raise issues over this video.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" has a few questionable scenes. The one that confuses me the most is the "Lord's Prayer" scene. Did Christ say "For thine is the kingdom, glory, and power for ever and ever"? Also, did Christ say, "Mother, here is your son..." or "Woman, here is your son..."? I read somewhere that "for thine is the kingdom..." was part of the Mass and that the scribes included it as the ending to the "Lord's Prayer". If this is true, it would seem that the Protestants are mistakenly accusing Catholics of deleting words while Protestants are adding them. Ironic.

I guess Hollywood is more interested in profits and not telling the truth for fear of offending the ticket holders.

ro

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.


Dear Rod,

I must say I never quite understood the perceived difference between "rewards" and salvation. When Jesus says one shall receive his "eternal reward", He is speaking of salvation, is He not? What other reward does God promise to those who follow Him? What other rewards could possibly matter, once you have eternal salvation? What more could anyone desire?

Catholics do not do good works to "win" salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is "a free gift of God, which cannot be earned or merited". But, like any gift, salvation must be freely accepted. Something that is offered but not accepted does not actually become a gift. Protestants claim that if our receiving salvation is contingent upon anything we do, then it is not a free gift, but is "earned". That simply isn't true. Suppose I hear that Ted is unemployed and having a hard time making ends meet. So I call him on the phone and say "Ted, I have some spare cash, and I'd like to offer you a gift of $500.00, to help you with your family's needs. I won't be home tomorrow, but stop by my house between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M., bring some form of I.D., and my wife will give you the money". Is my gift any less free because I defined some criteria for his receiving it? If Ted shows up at noon, he won't receive the gift, because my wife will have left for work. If he comes without I.D., he won't receive the gift either. But if he meets the required criteria, he will receive the gift, free and clear, no strings attached. Did he earn or merit the gift by fulfilling the required terms? Of course not! The Bible repeatedly makes it clear that faith and good works are the required conditions for accepting the free gift of salvation, and a lack of either one can cause us to forfeit the gift.

The phrase "for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever" was not spoken by Christ, nor did it appear in common usage for a long time after Christ. Technically, the phrase is known as a "doxology", a sort of blessing traditionally added onto the end of a prayer. These words did not appear in any early text of scripture, including the Douay-Rheims and the original King James Version. They first appeared in print as part of the Lord's Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church in the early 1600's, and were gradually incorporated as part of Protestant tradition from that point forward. Kind of interesting that those who most often insist on Scripture vs. Tradition have incorporated a tradition not only into their scripture, but into the words of God Himself.

As far as just how Jesus addressed His mother (and this also applies to the translations of a number of other terms found in scripture), the first thing we have to remember is that Jesus didn't speak English. Therefore He didn't actually say either "mother" or "woman". He addressed Mary by some Aramaic term, which was then translated into a presumably equivalent Greek term when the gospels were written. It is probable that given a thorough understanding of the social order and customs of the time (which I personally do not possess), either "wonman" or "mother" would be an appropriate translation. Actually, I don't see why it makes a difference. We know Mary was His mother. And we also know that addressing one's wife or mother as "woman" in that culture at that time was not considered a sign of disrespect. So why would this even be an issue? The only time I have seen it raised as an issue is in efforts by some Protestants to demonstrate that Mary was nothing special - her own Son didn't even treat her with respect. This of course is absurd.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.


Hi Paul.

My window of free time to reply is very short.

Then, the idea of winning jewels for Jesus' crown is not true? This seems to be the Protestant concept for doing "works". My argument is about the same as yours. Why do the works for points if we will be in Heaven anyway and why would Jesus want jewels? He wants our souls in Heaven.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Uh, the Protestant concept also includes that "works" are done in order to show the world one's faith. It does seem to me that there is more to it than just that. Of course, I am reading and researching everything you've mentioned, Paul. I can also understand how Protestants interpret those Scriptures you've mentioned. I do need to go over those scriptures again with a new light.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Dear Paul, I'm sure Jesus treated Mary according to the Commandments, by honoring his earthly his mother just like we should honor OUR earthly mother's. Not treat her as a major emphasis to christianity. I see the apostles like Paul having equal primacy to Peter. I cannot see the establishment of the papacy through the Bible.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Remember most of all "For the scripture saith.."

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Dear Paul, You catholic doctrine never changes, so why was the selling of indulgences first instituted? and then discontinued? Because this was the single incident that caused Martin Luther to stick the 95 thesis on the catholic church door, thus causing the Protestant reformation then counter reformation.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Tradition is a necessity if it is in line with scripture, scriptures being basically the set of "instructions" just like communion, protestants practice. As for scripture vs tradition, I don't quit under stand what you mean. Are they suppose to be opposed to each other>?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Correction it is not a Protestant belief that once saved always saved. We must repent! If a man turn away from God after recieving the knowledge of the truth, there is nothing left but a "certain fearful looking" the Bible states so. I'm still not quite sure if a man can come back to God after abadoning him, but then there is the story of the "Prodigal Son". God won't walk away from you, but you have the ability to walk away from God. Protestant's teach CONFESS your sins to God, for he hears you. Confession to man should be done with a TRUSTED preacher or pastor who can help be a brother to ya. I think it's more like, being a Christian is so wonderful that you wont want to turn back to the world. That relationship with God is so strong, if one were to for some reason forsake that, than how can there possibly be forgiveness for that?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Dear Paul and Rod, This was said by Jesus regarding salvation. "Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." He doesn't seem to be refering to a church.

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Hi Andrew.

Yes. I should have made it clear when I echoed the remarks of others. We must confess and repent our sins knowing that if we are not sincere we fall from God's grace. So, the notion of "once saved always saved" and "there is always confession" is like doing a high wire act over Sheol. If we keep walking the same path, we will eventually fall and never recover.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.


Dear Andrew,

As on most doctrinal issues, the various Protestant denominations hold widely conflicting ideas about this. Some would agree with you (and with the Catholic Church) that ongoing repentance for ongoing sin is necessary for salvation. Of course, once you accept that truth, then the fallacy of the whole concept of already "being saved" in this life becomes apparent. Other more fundamentalist groups do indeed profess that once you are "saved" there is absolutely nothing you can do that can cause you to "lose" that salvation. Of course, many of them cover themselves by saying that if you do fall into serious sin after being "saved", you never were really "saved" in the first place. But the most extreme of them, several of which I have talked with both online and in person, will insist that once you have accepted Jesus, and are "saved", even if you later become a mass murderer, you will still walk into heaven with your sins "covered over by the blood of Christ". Once saved, always saved.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 31, 2003.


Dear Paul, I would really like to know what those fundamental denominations are that say once saved always saved. Because to me, If I am saved and I continue to sin all I want wilfully, with know remorse, does this individual sound like he is saved? ---Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

I do notice that most churches no longer emphasize repentance. --Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), March 31, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Most of the Protestant churches that are most vehement about "once saved always saved" are not mainline denominations. I don't even know if sonme of them have names. So have names like "Pastor Bill's Storefront Church of Eternal Salvation". However, I did a quick web search which yielded about 170 sites professing "once saved always saved". Here are a few quotes from the one at the top of the list ...

"When the Bible speaks of possessing eternal life, it speaks in the present tense (hath, have, etc.) — SOMETHING WE ALREADY HAVE! If we had to work or endure to keep our salvation, this could not be true. What about the "backslider" or somebody that forsakes the Lord? The Bible says he will suffer loss (rewards, etc.) — but he himself shall be saved! Our salvation is so secure — even if we BELIEVE NOT after we're saved, yet he abideth faithful: HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF." Salvation is the free gift of God. If we had to work to keep it — it would not be a free gift — and God would be a liar! Salvation is not enduring or a process, but an event in time. Salvation is a NEW BIRTH. Just as your first birth happened on a certain time and day, so does the second birth. Just as nothing can "negate" your physical birth, nothing can "negate" your spiritual birth."

That's pretty typical jargon from the o-s-a-s crowd. And it is commonplace! I'm sure you can pick out at least four or five glaring scriptural contradictions and misinterpretations in those few lines of text. I certainly can. And this church, like any Protestant church, would not hesitate to preface each of those statements with "for the scripture saith". That's the easy part. Now if they could just reach some consensus about "for the scripture meaneth".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 01, 2003.


Dear Paul, All I can say is that there are many cults out there. Watch out. Can you site me those sources please where you found those quotes I'm curious.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 01, 2003.

That's what makes Protestantism different than catholicism. You cannot categorize all protestant denominations as one, so thus just because one non-mainline denomination believes something Biblically unaccurate you cannot hold it against all Protestants just to that single group, so don't even try. I hope you know what I mean, whereas catholicism, if even one thing is wrong then the whole church follows fables. Multitudes would be led astray. The road is indeed "narrow".

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 01, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

That's an interesting interpretation of the facts. Yes, the unity of the Catholic Church is such that even one false belief would indeed be held universally. That is how Jesus said it would be. But He also said that whatsoever His Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and that the Holy Spirit would guide it to all truth. therefore we can rest assured that false doctrines cannot exist within it.

On the Protestant side of the issue, yes, the mere fact that one denomination holds a particular false belief doesn't mean they all hold that particular belief. On the contrary, on any given issue there are usually dozens of conflicting beliefs, which is how we know that false beliefs are rampant in the system. And since that church which holds that particular false belief arrived at it by exactly the same system you use - personal interpretation of the Bible - and since your church has no more authority behind its interpretaion than they do, you have no real basis for claiming that you are right and they are wrong.

The site from which I took those quotes, which was simply the first one that came up, was: http://www.av1611.org/etern.html

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 01, 2003.


Dear Andrew,

By way of replying to an older post of yours that I never got to:

You asked: Dear Paul, You catholic doctrine never changes, so why was the selling of indulgences first instituted? and then discontinued? Because this was the single incident that caused Martin Luther to stick the 95 thesis on the catholic church door, thus causing the Protestant reformation then counter reformation.

A: "Selling of indulgences" was never actually "instituted", officially speaking. But more to the point, what actually happened was an administrative abuse, not a doctrinal issue. The Church's administration is not impeccable, but its doctrine is, as Jesus clearly stated, infallible. The granting of indulgences, which the Bible refers to as "storing up riches in heaven", was a Christian teaching from the very start. It still is. The official teaching of the Church regarding indulgences is still precisely as it was before the Protestant Revolt. Doctrine, that is official teaching, cannot and does not change. Indulgences are still granted today, just as they were then, for a variety of Christian works of charity, including contributions to worthy causes. The problem that arose in the 16th century was that some Church leaders, in their zeal to construct the great cathedrals of Europe for the glory of God, overemphasized the idea of financial donations as opposed to other charitable contributions, thereby causing scandal by creating the impression of "selling" something spiritual, a practice which is and always has been expressly forbidden by Church teaching. This abuse was put to rest by the Pope, in order to restore the practice of indulgences to its rightful place in the spiritual life of the Church. In any case, no doctrinal issue was at stake here, and no doctrine was changed. The only thing that changed was an abusive practice, about which Luther had a legitimate concern, and which badly needed to be corrected, and was.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 01, 2003.


"Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be be bound in Heaven.." of the scriptures was also said to his other disciples weren't they? After that Jesus goes and says "where 2 or 3 are gathered.. there I am in the the midst.." Isn't he talking about a bunch of Christians having fellowship together and that there is power in that, that whatsoever they pray for or against shall be answered? I sorry no man including the Pope has the authority to bind as in "change" any of God's established laws by adding or taking away and call it a God given Law. If it isn't in scripture then no man has the authority to make any sort of new "law". I hope I am accurate in trying to understand what your saying, because if your saying mere man using the "bind on earth" scripture as justification for complete power to make all kinds of new doctrines and say they were God inspired despite contrary to the Bible then that is error. Well I still want to say that there are many protestant cults out there. That is why it is important for every individual to read his or her Bible. The saved are the elect, those whom God foreknew, agains the road is indeed narrow.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 01, 2003.

The Church is not God, it is the temple of God.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 01, 2003.

The church is a place of worship and fellowship.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 01, 2003.

Hi Paul, thanks for all the effort on this thread, very intresting stuff.As Rod says "if only my faith was as strong" wow. A few questions if you would be so kind.

Firstly when you say "once saved always saved" churches are not mainline, what about churches that folow Calvinism? Is predestination different from what you are talking about?

Secondly I see you have expressed many times on this thread the necessity of faith for salvation. My question is in regard to Lumen Gentium (sp?)and how "non believers" of "good will" can attain salvation. How does goodwill relate to faith? Is this document saying that these men of goodwill have faith but do not realise it and will be saved?

Finally how does one reconcile differences they have with some church techings without losing their sense of dignity, self respect and honesty? There have been many issues in the past which have left the church with egg on her face, the church has preached things before which plainly were not the full truth... eg Galielio (sp?), burning of heretics as "pleasing to God" !!!, terrible immoral unjust wars and oppression of native peoples, co education being dangerous and immoral etc etc there are hundreds of plainly wrong things the church has said in the past? How do we know theyre not saying absurd things today ?

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.


Isn't it also true that there were protestants well before protestantism? Mainline protestants churches are not miles apart!

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

When you consider the church having all power and around the popes fingers, is how you end up with the crusades, inquisition, etc. What happened to "love your enemies"? One must have a lot of audacity to boast that they can exercize that kind of authority. So back to indulgences, Paul was it wrong or right and how come they don't do it anymore. How can the Church have power to sell pieces of paper that forgive sins? This is deception. Was it unjust that the protestant reformation was triggered through this single event?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

So you say the church's administration is not impeccable, so thus things that the preists or even the pope says could be misleading? So therefore when you say catholic preists etc are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret, is a false statement then right?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

A church that purposely misinterprets doctrine, is a cult, is it not? It decieves the multitudes. The Church would not longer be the "pillar of Truth" because it's not delivered in truth.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

Somehow I do not believe your views of the indulgences issue. indulgences must have been so scandalous to cause this big of a "revolt" as many followed luther against these practices.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

When you say the "administration" is not impeccable, then it makes them no different to your views of protestants, "And since that church which holds that particular false belief arrived at it by exactly the same system you use - personal interpretation of the Bible - and since your church has no more authority behind its interpretaion". (because it was the wrong intepretation) <== this applies to you to.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

So now what your saying is the church is fallible but it's doctrine isn't?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

"And since that church which holds that particular false belief arrived at it by exactly the same system you use - personal interpretation of the Bible .....So now what your saying is the church is fallible but it's doctrine isn't?"

Hi ANdrew its great to see you asking the hard questions, Pauls your man for sure. The church from what I know (no alot) the church is most certainly not falliable. No way ever! God will always protect his Church!However all men are sinners and they will abuse their authority, (re US Bishops sex scandal but THE CHURCH is not to blame).The Pope is protected from making errors through the holy spirit as is told in the Bible and handed down from Peter- (only when speaking on matters of faith and morals) where I differ from Paul is that I think Popes have made some errors before and I need to try and understand why this could have happened .

Yet as a Catholic the whole basis of my faith rests on me always saying the Pope is and has been infallible on matters of faith and morals. Hmmmmm no comment.

ANyway I think what Paul is saying is that men are fallible but the Church and doctrine on faith and morals most certainly isnt. He will correct me if ive got it wrong I am sure.

Take it easy hey and stick around, the more you learn about the Catholic faith the more intresting it gets. The logic and reason that supports every bit (or almost every bit )is quite simply astounding. No one institution or country has ever done more good for mankind than the Catholic church from, schools to charity shops to hospitals to Universities. 2000 years of one essentially unchanged church with consistent non contridictory teachings is something to behold in awe and amazement. I feel frustrated that others my age and generation dismiss the church so easily while making zero effort to understand what it really teaches. Simply I feel very humble to be a Catholic even if I ask some rather negative questions at times to learn more.

Blessings

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.


Well ya mentioned the Church scandal. You cannot use the everyone including preists are sinners as justification, you would have a lot of audacity. Aren't Priests suppose to be holy men of God gone through the training through the celibacy, so how could the priest scandals have arisen? Can just anyone be a priest or what? This scandal, is a PHENOMENA. All of a sudden around the world not just the US people have come forth claiming to be "done wrong" by priests. To this magnitude, this was not just an isolated incident. The apostles of Jesus Christ, were holy men of God, could we imagine them doing what has been done? by the way isn't it "wicked to forbid marraige"? Maybe your humble Kiwi, but it still seems that that church is still prideful. I mean, dude it is a church, and something like this happened? I know atheists that know better than to do what they did. Paul, still hasn't answered many of my questions. -- Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

Protestant denominations have done the same as catholic churches in benefiting mankind.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

Jesus wore a crown of thorns, why does the Pope wear a tall crown. The Pope get's his hand kissed, and kings bow down before him. This did not happen to Peter. This isn't right.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

sadf

-- sdfg (sdaf@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.

St. Mark chp 9 verse 38-40 "And John answered him, saying, Master we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followed not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said 'Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.'" So here was a guy casting out devils in Jesus name, who didn't follow their group, yet obviously believed in Him. So how can you say then that there is no salvation outside the catholic church if Jesus said whoever wasn't against them is for them and that man wasn't exactly following them, but yet performed miracles in Jesus name?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

"So how can you say then that there is no salvation outside the catholic church."

Hi Andrew a few words from Pope John Paul II...

"The Council speaks of membership in the Church for Christians and of being related to the Church for non-Christian believers in God, for people of goodwill (cf. Lumen Gentium 15-16). Both these dimensions are important for salvation, and each one possesses varying levels. People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

It would be difficult to deny that this doctrine is extremely open. It cannot be accused of an ecclesiological exclusivism. Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church probably do not have an adequate understanding of this teaching."

If you want to learn more about this to put it into context please read this page

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap21.html

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.


So Protestants are Christians.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

Not everyone in the church is saved. I can call myself a Christian but if I don't live my life accordingly, even if I go to church, it means nothing. Church doesn't save. One must first come to the realization in his or her heart that he or she needs Christ. Church comes after. It is Christ that lives in oneself that truly changes him. Not everyone in the church preaches the truth, for there could be "wolves in sheep clothing", we shall know them by their "fruits". A professed Christian that keeps producing bad fruit, is he really a Christian?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 02, 2003.

Yes they are Christian, in fact the differences between most protestant churches and Catholics is not all that great, generally most Protestant churhces are just watered down , weaker versions of the full truth. Generally the requirements and rules of Protestant churches are much more ahh lax and open, theyll accept anything because well often they stand for nothing.

They simply have little or no understanding of what Jesus wanted his Church to be like, nor do they care. For most their own mind is their own God and armed with the Bible they believe they have all the answers. The Catholic church is not just faith based but also reason based. Faith and reason then go side by side , sadly Protestant churches have very little of the reason beind them. ANy thinking person can see this. Ill try and think of a few differences that spreing to mind...they all deny the authority of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, some believe that the Bible alone is the only source of truth and reject any heirachy like Bishops Priests etc, most reject that the eucharist is the real presence of the body and blood of Christ but take communiuon as a symbolic act in memory of Christs sacrifice . Actually thinking about it there are too many differences for me to list!... especially things like the ordination of women, marraige of clergy, days of fasting, holy days of obligation etc .

The more you understand the history of the early church the more absurd all protestant churches look. While it is easy to understand the frustration of protestant Church reformers like Clavin and Luther , (the Ctaholic church had grown complacent and dare I say it even corrupt) they should never have left the church to begin their own church. ANdrew a Protestant church has no more or less credibilty than if you were to start up a church of your own..The Church of Andrew. Its an absolute joke, how anyone with even half a clue can take much real comfort and solace in a protestant faith is beyond me. The more you look into this the more you will see it is absolutley true, Protestant churches hold many truths but sadly are some way off the full truth offered by Christs Church.

Try asking an Lutheran how they know they have the truth as opposed to The Church of Andrew, and well they cant, their church is founded on man, the Catholic church is founded by God. They havent got a clue. The choice is rather obvious man or God????????????

Without the one true church as established by Christ 2000 years ago we have no basis from which to determine the truth in regard to the interpretation of scriptures. Those churches who follow Bible alone authority,, individual interpretation (sola scripture) forget it was the Catholic church that complied the Bible! Oh the irony.Each and every one of the 25,000 odd protestant churches each has its own version of the truth, sounds so bizzare, it would be funny if it were not so dangerous as they do lead people away from salvation.

Im ranting and I dont know what Im talking about but you get the idea. I should be more positive as we have far more in common with Protestants than we do have apart and most of the basic truths remain the same..Jesus is our saviour and to reach heaven we must obey the ten cvommandments etc and love others etc.

So Protestants are christians ..of sorts.... its like the difference between your local 5th grade primary school basketball team and the NBA, the same game?... well sort of.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.


Then it would be fair to say your church is the church of the Pope. The pope is your god.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

I think the books of the Bible were already considered authentic written by the saints before the catholic church canonized it. The reformer Bible's, such as the King James were recanonized in a sense since the Apocrpha was not considered to be divinely inspired. Those that follow also after tradition set by man transgress those commandments from the scriptures. Through the scriptures only will we find the true instructions from God. The catholic church is not the source of the content in scriptures. Within the Bible itself indicates scriptural basis.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

Andrew the ultimate power of what is wrong and right is not written in a book but in your heart but it must be informed in order to make the right decidon ...it must come from studying what the Pope says. Clearly one must listen to the voice of those whom God has expressly appointed to teach in His name, rather than to one's own private judgment deciding what God's teaching ought to be.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

The scriptures were supposed to be released for all too read and get close to God. Not to be held in the hands of priests and only in Latin. Martin Luther and other reformers helped bring about translating the Bible into other tongues. For God's holy truth to be known to the public and not be skewed by questionable traditions and interpretations. Ignorance is what caused the multitudes to follow the Pope's order to invade Jerusalem during the crusades. We all know how that turned out. Then it was translated into english, isn't it a wonder why English is such a universal language? Believe me Protestant scholars are guided by the Holy Spirit too.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

After your born again, the Holy Spirit guides you in all truth and shows you what is right or wrong. Daily scripture reading is vital to a Christian life.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

Scripture gives account.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

Testimony of a Former Irish Priest by

Richard Peter Bennett [Editor's Note: When I first read Bro. Bennett's testimony in a newsletter, I felt compelled to publish it so I sent him a note asking for permission. He has graciously allowed us to share his thrilling testimony that shows the power of Jesus to break through any bondage. I pray to Jesus that this testimony will open many eyes, ears, and hearts to the dangers of Catholicism. I also pray that sinners would call upon the name of the Lord Jesus and know Him in the pardon of their sins and newness of life. Here's Bro. Bennett. Be blessed.]

The Early Years Born Irish, in a family of eight, my early childhood was fulfilled and happy. My father was a colonel in the Irish Army until he retired when I was about nine. As a family, we loved to play, sing, and act, all within a military camp in Dublin.

We were a typical Irish Roman Catholic family. My father sometimes knelt down to pray at his bedside in a solemn manner. My mother would talk to Jesus while sewing, washing dishes, or even smoking a cigarette. Most evenings we would kneel in the living room to say the Rosary together. No one ever missed Mass on Sundays unless he was seriously ill. By the time I was about five or six years of age, Jesus Christ was a very real person to me, but so also were Mary and the saints. I can identify easily with others in traditional Catholic nations in Europe and with Hispanics and Filipinos who put Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and other saints all in one boiling pot of faith.

The catechism was drilled into me at the Jesuit School of Belvedere, where I had all my elementary and secondary education. Like every boy who studies under the Jesuits, I could recite before the age of ten five reasons why God existed and why the Pope was head of the only true Church. Getting souls out of Purgatory was a serious matter. The often quoted words, "It is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins," were memorized even though we did not know what these words meant. We were told that the Pope as head of the Church was the most important man on earth. What he said was law, and the Jesuits were his right-hand men. Even though the Mass was in Latin, I tried to attend daily because I was intrigued by the deep sense of mystery which surrounded it. We were told it was the most important way to please God. Praying to saints was encouraged, and we had patron saints for most aspects of life. I did not make a practise of that, with one exception: St. Anthony, the patron of lost objects, since I seemed to lose so many things.

When I was fourteen years old, I sensed a call to be a missionary. This call, however, did not affect the way in which I conducted my life at that time. Age sixteen to eighteen were the most fulfilled and enjoyable years a youth could have. During this time, I did quite well both academically and athletically.

I often had to drive my mother to the hospital for treatments. While waiting for her, I found quoted in a book these verses from Mark 10:29-30, "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Not having any idea of the true salvation message, I decided that I truly did have a call to be a missionary.

Trying To Earn Salvation I left my family and friends in 1956 to join the Dominican Order. I spent eight years studying what it is to be a monk, the traditions of the Church, philosophy, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and some of the Bible from a Catholic standpoint. Whatever personal faith I had was institutionalized and ritualized in the Dominican religious system. Obedience to the law, both Church and Dominican, was put before me as the means of sanctification. I often spoke to Ambrose Duffy, our Master of Students, about the law being the means of becoming holy. In addition to becoming "holy," I wanted also to be sure of eternal salvation. I memorized part of the teaching of Pope Pius XII in which he said, "...the salvation of many depends on the prayers and sacrifices of the mystical body of Christ offered for this intention." This idea of gaining salvation through suffering and prayer is also the basic message of Fatima and Lourdes, and I sought to win my own salvation as well as the salvation of others by such suffering and prayer.

In the Dominican monastery in Tallaght, Dublin, I performed many difficult feats to win souls, such as taking cold showers in the middle of winter and beating my back with a small steel chain. The Master of Students knew what I was doing, his own austere life being part of the inspiration that I had received from the Pope's words. With rigor and determination, I studied, prayed, did penance, tried to keep the Ten Commandments and the multitude of Dominican rules and traditions.

Outward Pomp -- Inner Emptiness Then in 1963 at the age of twenty-five I was ordained a Roman Catholic priest and went on to finish my course of studies of Thomas Aquinas at The Angelicum University in Rome. But there I had difficulty with both the outward pomp and the inner emptiness. Over the years I had formed, from pictures and books, pictures in my mind of the Holy See and the Holy City. Could this be the same city? At the Angelicum University I was also shocked that hundreds of others who poured into our morning classes seemed quite disinterested in theology. I noticed Time and Newsweek magazines being read during classes. Those who were interested in what was being taught seemed only to be looking for either degrees or positions within the Catholic Church in their homelands.

One day I went for a walk in the Colosseum so that my feet might tread the ground where the blood of so many Christians had been poured out. I walked to the arena in the Forum. I tried to picture in my mind those men and women who knew Christ so well that they were joyfully willing to be burned at the stake or devoured alive by beasts because of His overpowering love. The joy of this experience was marred, however, for as I went back in the bus I was insulted by jeering youths shouting words meaning "scum or garbage." I sensed their motivation for such insults was not because I stood for Christ as the early Christians did but because they saw in me the Roman Catholic system. Quickly, I put this contrast out of my mind, yet what I had been taught about the present glories of Rome now seemed very irrelevant and empty.

One night soon after that, I prayed for two hours in front of the main altar in the church of San Clemente. Remembering my earlier youthful call to be a missionary and the hundredfold promise of Mark 10:29-30, I decided not to take the theological degree that had been my ambition since beginning study of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. This was a major decision, but after long prayer I was sure I had decided correctly.

The priest who was to direct my thesis did not want to accept my decision. In order to make the degree easier, he offered me a thesis written several years earlier. He said I could useit as my own if only I would do the oral defense. This turned my stomach. It was similar to what I had seen a few weeks earlier in a city park: elegant prostitutes parading themselves in their black leather boots. What he was offering was equally sinful. I held to my decision, finishing at the University at the ordinary academic level, without the degree.

On returning from Rome, I received official word that I had been assigned to do a three year course at Cork University. I prayed earnestly about my missionary call. To my surprise, I received orders in late August 1964 to go to Trinidad, West Indies, as a missionary.

Pride, Fall, And A New Hunger On October 1, 1964, I arrived in Trinidad, and for seven years I was a successful priest, in Roman Catholic terms, doing all my duties and getting many people to come to Mass. By 1972 I had become quite involved in the Catholic Charismatic Movement. Then, at a prayer meeting on March 16th of that year, I thanked the Lord that I was such a good priest and requested that if it were His will, He humble me that I might be even better. Later that same evening I had a freak accident, splitting the back of my head and hurting my spine in many places. Without thus coming close to death, I doubt that I would ever have gotten out of my self- satisfied state. Rote, set prayer showed its emptiness as I cried out to God in my pain.

In the suffering that I went through in the weeks after the accident, I began to find some comfort in direct personal prayer. I stopped saying the Breviary (the Roman Catholic Church's official prayer for clergy) and the Rosary and began to pray using parts of the Bible itself. This was a very slow process. I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map.

When assigned to a new parish later that year, I found that I was to work side-by-side with a Dominican priest who had been a brother to me over the years. For more than two years we were to work together, fully seeking God as best we knew in the parish of Pointe-a-Pierre. We read, studied, prayed, and put into practise what we had been taught in Church teaching. We built up communities in Gasparillo, Claxton Bay, and Marabella, just to mention the main villages. In a Catholic religious sense we were very successful. Many people attended Mass. The Catechism was taught in many schools, including government schools. I continued my personal search into the Bible, but it did not much affect the work we were doing; rather it showed me how little I really knew about the Lord and His Word. It was at this time that Philippians 3:10 became the cry of my heart, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...."

About this time the Catholic Charismatic movement was growing, and we introduced it into most of our villages. Because of this movement, some Canadian Christians came to Trinidad to share with us. I learned much from their messages, especially about praying for healing. The whole impact of what they said was very experience-oriented but was truly a blessing, insofar, as it got me deeply into the Bible as an authority source. I began to compare scripture with scripture and even to quote chapter and verse! One of the texts the Canadians used was Isaiah 53:5, "...and with his stripes we are healed." Yet in studying Isaiah 53, I discovered that the Bible deals with the problem of sin by means of substitution. Christ died in my place. It was wrong for me to try to expidite or try to cooperate in paying the price of my sin.

"If by grace, it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.." Romans 11:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

One particular sin of mine was getting annoyed with people, sometimes even angry. Although I asked forgiveness for my sins, I still did not realize that I was a sinner by the nature which we all inherit from Adam. The scriptural truth is, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10), and "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The Catholic Church, however, had taught me that the depravity of man, which is called "original sin," had been washed away by my infant baptism. I still held this belief in my head, but in my heart I knew that my depraved nature had not yet been conquered by Christ.

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection..." (Philippians 3:10) continued to be the cry of my heart. I knew that it could be only through His power that I could live the Christian life. I posted this text on the dashboard of my car and in other places. It became the plea that motivated me, and the Lord who is Faithful began to answer.

The Ultimate Question First, I discovered that God's Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned. Now I began to understand that the Bible could, in fact, be trusted. With the aid of Strong's Concordance, I began to study the Bible to see what it says about itself. I discovered that the Bible teaches clearly that it is from God and is absolute in what it says. It is true in its history, in the promises God has made, in its prophecies, in the moral commands it gives, and in how to live the Christian life. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16-17).

This discovery was made while visiting in Vancouver, B.C., and in Seattle. When I was asked to talk to the prayer group in St. Stephen's Catholic Church, I took as my subject the absolute authority of God's Word. It was the first time that I had understood such a truth or talked about it. I returned to Vancouver, B.C. and in a large parish Church, before about 400 people, I preached the same message. Bible in hand, I proclaimed that "the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith and morals is the Bible, God's own Word."

Three days later, the archbishop of Vancouver, B.C., James Carney, called me to his office. I was then officially silenced and forbidden to preach in his archdiocese. I was told that my punishment would have been more severe, were it not for the letter of recommendation I had received from my own archbishop, Anthony Pantin. Soon afterwards I returned to Trinidad.

Church-Bible Dilemma While I was still parish priest of Point-a-Pierre, Ambrose Duffy, the man who had so strictly taught me while he was Student Master, was asked to assist me. The tide had turned. After some initial difficulties, we became close friends. I shared with him what I was discovering. He listened and commented with great interest and wanted to find out what was motivating me. I saw in him a channel to my Dominican brothers and even to those in the Archbishop's house.

When he died suddenly of a heart attack, I was stricken with grief. In my mind, I had seen Ambrose as the one who could make sense out of the Church-Bible dilemma with which I so struggled. I had hoped that he would have been able to explain to me and then to my Dominican brothers the truths with which I wrestled. I preached at his funeral and my despair was very deep.

I continued to pray Philippians 3:10, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...." But to learn more about Him, I had first to learn about myself as a sinner. I saw from the Bible (I Timothy 2:5) that the role I was playing as a priestly mediator -- exactly what the Catholic Church teaches but exactly opposite to what the Bible teaches -- was wrong. I really enjoyed being looked up to by the people and, in a certain sense, being idolized by them. I rationalized my sin by saying that after all, if this is what the biggest Church in the world teaches, who am I to question it? Still, I struggled with the conflict within. I began to see the worship of Mary, the saints, and the priests for the sin that it is. But while I was willing to renounce Mary and the saints as mediators, I could not renounce the priesthood, for in that I had invested my whole life.

Tug-Of-War Years Mary, the saints, and the priesthood were just a small part of the huge struggle with which I was working. Who was Lord of my life, Jesus Christ in His Word or the Roman Church? This ultimate question raged inside me especially during my last six years as parish priest of Sangre Grande (1979-1985). That the Catholic Church was supreme in all matters of faith and morals had been dyed into my brain since I was a child. It looked impossible ever to change.

Rome was not only supreme but always called "Holy Mother." How could I ever go against "Holy Mother," all the more so since I had an official part in dispensing her sacraments and keeping people faithful to her? In 1981, I actually rededicated myself to serving the Roman Catholic Church while attending a parish renewal seminar in New Orleans. Yet when I returned to Trinidad and again became involved in real life problems, I began to return to the authority of God's Word. Finally the tension became like a tug-of-war inside me. Sometimes I looked to the Roman Church as being absolute, sometimes to the authority of the Bible as being final. My stomach suffered much during those years; my emotions were being torn. I ought to have known the simple truth that one cannot serve two masters. My working position was to place the absolute authority of the Word of God under the supreme authority of the Roman Church.

This contradiction was symbolized in what I did with the four statues in the Sangre Grande Church. I removed and broke the statues of St. Francis and St. Martin because the second commandment of God's Law declares in Exodus 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...." But when some of the people objected to my removal of the statues of the Sacred Heart and of Mary, I left them standing because the higher authority, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, said in its law Canon 1188: "The practise of displaying sacred images in the churches for the veneration of the faithful is to remain in force."

I did not see that what I was trying to do was to make God's Word subject to man's word. My Own Fault While I had learned earlier that God's Word is absolute, I still went through this agony of trying to maintain the Roman Catholic Church as holding more authority than God's Word, even in issues where the Church of Rome was saying the exact opposite to what was in the Bible.

How could this be? First of all, it was my own fault. If I had accepted the authority of the Bible as supreme, I would have been convicted by God's Word to give up my priestly role as mediator, but that was too precious to me. Second, no one ever questioned what I did as a priest.

Christians from overseas came to Mass, saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvelous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church was all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery.

The Turning Point One day, a woman challenged me (the only Christian ever to challenge me in all my 22 years as a priest), "You Roman Catholics have a form of godliness, but you deny its power." Those words bothered me for some time because the lights, banners, folk music, guitars, and drums were dear to me. Probably no priest on the whole island of Trinidad had as colorful robes, banners, and vestments as I had. Clearly I did not apply what was before my eyes.

In October 1985, God's grace was greater than the lie that I was trying to live. I went to Barbados to pray over the compromise that I was forcing myself to live. I felt truly trapped. The Word of God is absolute indeed. I ought to obey it alone; yet to the very same God I had vowed obedience to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. In Barbados I read a book in which was explained the Biblical meaning of Church as "the fellowship of believers." In the New Testament there is no hint of a hierarchy; "Clergy" lording it over the "laity" is unknown. Rather, it is as the Lord Himself declared "...one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren" (Matthew 23:8).

Now to see and to understand the meaning of church as "fellowship" left me free to let go of the Roman Catholic Church as supreme authority and depend on Jesus Christ as Lord. It began to dawn on me that in Biblical terms, the Bishops I knew in the Catholic Church were not Biblical believers. They were for the most part pious men taken up with devotion to Mary and the Rosary and loyal to Rome, but not one had any idea of the finished work of salvation, that Christ's work is done, that salvation is personal and complete. They all preached penance for sin, human suffering, religious deeds, "the way of man" rather than the Gospel of grace. But by God's grace I saw that it was not through the Roman Church nor by any kind of works that one is saved, "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).

New Birth at Age 48 I left the Roman Catholic Church when I saw that life in Jesus Christ was not possible while remaining true to Roman Catholic doctrine. In leaving Trinidad in November 1985, I only reached neighboring Barbados. Staying with an elderly couple, I prayed to the Lord for a suit and necessary money to reach Canada, for I had only tropical clothing and a few hundred dollars to my name. Both prayers were answered without making my needs known to anyone except the Lord.

From a tropical temperature of 90 degrees, I landed in snow and ice in Canada. After one month in Vancouver, I came to the United States of America. I now trusted that He would take care of my many needs, since I was beginning life anew at 48 years of age, practically penniless, without an alien resident card, without a driver's license, without a recommendation of any kind, having only the Lord and His Word.

I spent six months with a Christian couple on a farm in Washington State. I explained to my hosts that I had left the Roman Catholic Church and that I had accepted Jesus Christ and His Word in the Bible as all-sufficient. I had done this, I said, "absolutely, finally, definitively, and resolutely." Yet far from being impressed by these four adverbs, they wanted to know if there was any bitterness or hurt inside me. In prayer and in great compassion, they ministered to me, for they themselves had made the transition and knew how easily one can become embittered. Four days after I arrived in their home, by God's grace I began to see in repentance the fruit of salvation. This meant being able not only to ask the Lord's pardon for my many years of compromising but also to accept His healing where I had been so deeply hurt. Finally, at age 48, on the authority of God's Word alone, by grace alone, I accepted Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross alone. To Him alone be the glory.

Having been refurbished both physically and spiritually by this Christian couple together with their family, I was provided a wife by the Lord, Lynn, born-again in faith, lovely in manner, intelligent in mind. Together we set out for Atlanta, Georgia, where we both got jobs.

A Real Missionary With A Real Message In September 1988, we left Atlanta to go as missionaries to Asia. It was a year of deep fruitfulness in the Lord that once I would never have thought was possible. Men and women came to know the authority of the Bible and the power of Christ's death and resurrection. I was amazed at how easy it is for the Lord's grace to be effective when only the Bible is used to present Jesus Christ. This contrasted with the cobwebs of church tradition that had so clouded my 21 years in missionary garments in Trinidad, 21 years without the real message.

To explain the abundant life of which Jesus spoke and which I now enjoy, no better words could be used than those of Romans 8:1- 2: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." It is not just that I have been freed from the Roman Catholic system, but that I have become a new creature in Christ. It is by the grace of God, and nothing but His grace, that I have gone from dead works into new life.

Testimony to the Gospel of Grace Back in 1972, when some Christians had taught me about the Lord healing our bodies, how much more helpful it would have been had they explained to me on what authority our sinful nature is made right with God. The Bible clearly shows that Jesus substituted for us on the cross. I cannot express it better than Isaiah 53:5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (This means that Christ took on himself what I ought to suffer for my sins. Before the Father, I trust in Jesus as my substitute.)

That was written 750 years before the crucifixion of our Lord. A short time after the sacrifice of the cross, the Bible states in I Peter 2:24: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

Because we inherited our sin nature from Adam, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. How can we stand before a Holy God - - except in Christ -- and acknowledge that He died where we ought to have died? God gives us the faith to be born again, making it possible for us to acknowledge Christ as our substitute. It was Christ who paid the price for our sins: sinless, yet He was crucified. This is the true Gospel message. Is faith enough? Yes, born-again faith is enough. That faith, born of God, will result in good works including repentance: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

In repenting, we put aside, through God's strength, our former way of life and our former sins. It does not mean that we cannot sin again, but it does mean that our position before God has changed. We are called children of God, for so indeed we are. If we do sin, it is a relationship problem with the Father which can be resolved, not a problem of losing our position as a child of God in Christ, for this position is irrevocable. In Hebrews 10:10, the Bible says it so wonderfully: "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The finished work of Christ Jesus on the Cross is sufficient and complete. As you trust solely in this finished work, a new life which is born of the Spirit will be yours -- you will be born again.

The Present Day My present task: the good work that the Lord has prepared for me to do is as an evangelist situated in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A. What Paul said about his fellow Jews I say about my dearly loved Catholic brothers: my heart's desire and prayer to God for Catholics is that they may be saved. I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based in God's Word but in their church tradition. If you understand the devotion and agony that some of our brothers and sisters in the Philippines and South America have put into their religion, you may understand my heart's cry: "Lord, give us a compassion to understand the pain and torment of the search our brothers and sisters have made to please You. In understanding pain inside the Catholic hearts, we will have the desire to show them the Good News of Christ's finished work on the Cross."

My testimony shows how difficult it was for me as a Catholic to give up Church tradition, but when the Lord demands it in His Word, we must do it. The "form of godliness" that the Roman Catholic Church has makes it most difficult for a Catholic to see where the real problem lies. Everyone must determine by what authority we know truth. Rome claims that it is only by her own authority that truth is known. In her own words, Cannon 212, Section 1, "The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church." (Vatican Council II based, Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John-Paul II, 1983).

Yet according to the Bible, it is God's Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known. It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand "the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory."

The Reason Why I Share I share these truths with you now so that you can know God's way of salvation. Our basic fault as Catholics is that we believe that somehow we can of ourselves respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, "Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons...."

With that mindset, we were unknowingly holding to a teaching that the Bible continually condemns. Such a definition of grace is man's careful fabrication, for the Bible consistently declares that the believer's right standing with God is "without works" (Romans 4:6), "without the deeds of the Law" (Romans 3:28), "not of works" (Ephesians 2:9), "It is the gift of God," (Ephesians 2:8). To attempt to make the believer's response part of his salvation and to look upon grace as "a help" is to flatly deny Biblical truth,

"...if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace..." (Romans 11:6). The simple Biblical message is that "the gift of righteousness" in Christ Jesus is a gift, resting on His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

So it is as Christ Jesus Himself said, He died in place of the believer, the One for many (Mark 10:45), His life a ransom for many. As He declared, ...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). This is also what Peter proclaimed, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God..." (I Peter 3:18).

Paul's preaching is summarized at the end of II Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.." (II Cor. 5:21).

This fact, dear reader, is presented clearly to you in the Bible. Acceptance of it is now commanded by God, "...Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15).

The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of "meriting," "earning," "being good enough," simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul's time, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3)

Repent and believe the Good News!

Richard Bennett A native of Ireland he returned there in 1996 on an evangelistic tour. He now lives in Portland Oregon U.S.A. He teaches a workshop at Multnomah Bible College on "Catholicism in the Light of Biblical Truth." His greatest joy is door-to-door witnessing . He has produced three series of radio broadcasts. A fourth series is about to begin in the Philippines on D.W.T.I. and D.V. R .O. radio stations. He is co-editor of this book and founder of the ministry named "Berean Beacon."

Richard M. Bennett

richardbennett@integrityonline.com

P.O. Box 55353

Portland, OR 97238-5353 (USA)

Tel. or Fax (503) 257-5995



-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.


Yet according to the Bible, it is God's Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known. It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand "the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory." Remember this is Christianity, Jesus only.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

Andrew writes: "It was man-made traditions..."

Celebrating the Lords day on Sunday (instead of a Sabbath) was a tradition started by the Apostles. Have you left behind this "man-made tradition?"

Wearing wedding rings is a pagan tradition. Have you left behind this "man-made tradition?"

Do you believe you are in agreement with the Protestant reformers' theological positions?

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--A little advice for you, too: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.


The easter bunny santa claus halloween are pagan traditions as well.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 03, 2003.

I think the most stunning evidence of Peter being the rock, is the monumental writings of the church fathers, going all the way back, wherein they most certainly did believe that "Peter is the rock."

Andrew says that the Church is no longer the pillar and foundation of the truth (in his judgment) Andrew's disagreement is with scripture itself since scripture no where claims to be the pillar, but conversely claims the "Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth."

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 03, 2003.


Andrew-

I don't think Santa Claus is a pagan thing.

"Nicholas is the great patron of children and of christmas giving. The word "Santa Claus" is a short form of "Saint Nicholas." He was born in Asia Minor, and after his parents died, he gave all his money to charity. Once a certain poor man was about to abandon his daughters to a life of sin because they did not have the money for a dowry. St. Nicholas heard about his problem, so at night, he threw a bag of gold in the man's window."

I would agree that today "Santa Claus" has become too commercialized and most people have lost the truth about him. I don't agree with the Coca Cola image of Santa Claus either. So, I guess today it could be considered pagan-like because the truth has been forgotten.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.


"Yet according to the Bible, it is God's Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known"

A: yes, and the Bible clearly states where God's Word is to be found - in the Church to which He gave it, before any of it was ever written down, and long before any of it was compiled into a book.

"It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand "the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory."

A: No, it was not. The Catholic Church has always taught grace only, Christ only, and to god be the Glory. So Luther had no argument there at all. What did separate him from the Church of Jesus were his heretical doctrines of Bible only and faith only, which no Christian had ever heard of before Father Luther thought them up, and which directly contradict the Word of God. These were the doctrines which caused him to try to remove those New Testament books which most clearly proved his new doctrines false.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 03, 2003.


Hi Paul I asked a few questions upthread but you might have nissed them or more likely thought they were self explanatory. The most important of these to me was this

"Secondly I see you have expressed many times on this thread the necessity of faith for salvation. My question is in regard to Lumen Gentium (sp?)and how "non believers" of "good will" can attain salvation. How does goodwill relate to faith? Is this document saying that these men of goodwill have faith but do not realise it and will be saved? "

ANy thoughts on this how do some "faithless men", attain salvation as on the surface the Pope seems to besaying they can be saved through good works alone (goodwill). Thankyou.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.


"After your born again, the Holy Spirit guides you in all truth and shows you what is right or wrong. Daily scripture reading is vital to a Christian life".

Oh Andrew, come on now! Protestants have been making this demand of the Holy Spirit for 450 years. How many denominational divisions will it take before you get the message? The Holy Spirit does NOT and WILL NOT guide individuals directly to doctrinal truth. He does so only through the teaching of the Church. While I certainly agree that daily scripture reading is important for personal spiritual growth, reading the Bible and interpreting it for yourself CANNOT and WILL NOT guide one to doctrinal truth. What it will do is make you the first member of a new denomination. The clear evidence of history cannot be denied. The Protestant tradition produces division, fragmentation, confusion, and untruth - exactly the opposite of what Jesus described for His own Church - that they all may be ONE. The historical facts speak for themselves.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 03, 2003.


Dear Andrew,

You say - "The scriptures were supposed to be released for all too read and get close to God. Not to be held in the hands of priests and only in Latin".

A: Sorry, but this statement reflects "history" a la Jack Chick. The genuine historical facts are these: During Medieval times, only 5% of the population of Europe could read. These were the educated elite, and ALL of them were fully fluent in Latin, which was the universal language of educated people of the time, used in all official correspondence and documentation by doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and clerics. Therefore, translation of the Bible into Latin did not prevent anyone from reading it. Rather, it accomplished two purposes - first, it ensured that anyone who could read at all could read the scriptures; and second, it ensured that the meaning of the text would be preserved in a language which was "dead", that is to say, which was not still evolving and changing meanings of various words.

"Martin Luther and other reformers helped bring about translating the Bible into other tongues"

A: Luther did indeed translate the Bible into his native tongue, and his translation was so bad that his own followers completely abandoned it within a few years. However, the Catholic Church had translated the Bible into fourteen languages before Luther was even BORN.

"For God's holy truth to be known to the public and not be skewed by questionable traditions and interpretations".

A: Before Luther introduced the unbiblical tradition of personal interpretation, there was one Tradition - the Catholic Tradition founded by Christ - the only Christian Tradition approved and instituted by God. Once Luther's false teachings took hold, Christianity was infected by a plague of questionable traditions and false interpretations that has not ceased to the present day. Luther himself was aghast before his death when he saw the division and destruction that was resulting from what he himself had turned loose on the world.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 03, 2003.


er..........hello? anyone help me out here?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

Dear Paul, You are so militant and insisting on Protestant denominations being millions of miles apart in doctrine. They are not, how many times do I have to say. I am a Baptist and no episcopalian has ever tryed to convert me to their denomination. So Paul you say the Bible is important for personal spiritual growth then it would require one to understand scripture then why did the catholic church keep the Bible only in Latin. You make it seem God is so alienated from one's own personal life. God desires a personal relationship with you not through a priest. As I come to understand Martin Luther never encouraged mindless interpretation of the Bible. He himself as I have heard spent hours upon hours in meditation and studied diligently the scriptures.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 04, 2003.

This has also been bothering me. Why does the Pope carry a bent cross? What does it symbolize?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 04, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Each denomination is just a little different from the next, true. Which means that 100 denominations down the road, the beliefs are indeed millions of miles apart from those 100 denominations up the road. Compare a Lutheran to a 7th Day Adventist. These are both members of "the Christian Church"? These both follow the teachings of Christ? These both get their beliefs directly out of the Bible???

I realize Luther didn't recommend casual or unthinking Biblical interpretation. He recommended diligent study of the scriptures, by all means. And today ministers in thousands of conflicting sects are all studying the Bible diligently, just as Luther recommended - and STILL coming up with thousands of conflicting beliefs, because the system just DOESN'T WORK. It is in direct conflict with the source of truth that Jesus preached, and that the Holy Spirit provides.

I commented on the purpose of Latin in a previous post - scroll up.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 04, 2003.


(topping for review of unanswered questions)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

Bishops carry a crosier, which is a representation of a shepherd's staff, signifying their divinely ordained role as shepherds of the Church. As such, the crosier is also a symbol of authority. The Pope typically also carries a crosier, symbolic of his absolute authority as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Shepherd of the Universal Church. John Paul II, a man of almost unimaginable humility, opted for a "pastoral staff" bearing the image of his Savior, instead of the usual crosier, an act consistent with his usual approach, emphasizing humble servitude to the Lord.

Why is the crucifix at the top of the pastoral staff slightly bent forward? Because that is how Italian artist Lello Scorzelli designed it, probably to maintain the idea of the forward-curved crosier.

Some people just seem to need something to worry about.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 05, 2003.


(Paul, I topped this yesterday both because of Andrew's question -- which you did answer -- and because of Kiwi's question directed to you on April 3 -- which, I think, you haven't seen yet.) JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.

What, then, are we to understand by the "rock" on which Christ declared that he would build his Church? Whether are we to understand Peter, who afterwards thrice denied him, or the great truth which Peter had just confessed, even the eternal deity of Christ? The fathers, we have seen, interpreted "this rock" of Christ himself, or of the confession of his deity by Peter;[14] and so will every man, we venture to affirm, who is competent to form an opinion, and has no object to serve but the discovery of truth. Our Lord and his disciples were now on a northward journey to Cesarea Philippi. They were already within its coasts; the snowy peaks of Lebanon gleamed full in their sight; and nearer to them, indenting the bottom of "the goodly mountain," the wooded glens where the Jordan has its rise. Our Lord, knowing the time of his death to be nigh, thought it well, as they journeyed onward, to direct the current of the conversation to topics relating to the nature and foundation of that kingdom which was so shortly to be visibly erected in the world. "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?"[15] said he to his disciples. To this interrogatory the disciples replied by an enumeration of the various opinions held respecting him by the people at large. "But," said he, directing his question specially to the disciples,--"But whom say ye that I am?" "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Pleased to find his true character so clearly understood, so firmly believed in, and so frankly avowed, our Lord turned to Peter and said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed IT unto thee." What IT? Unquestionably the truth he had just acknowledged, that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God,"--a truth which lay at the foundation of his mission, which lay at the foundation of all his reaching, and, by consequence, at the foundation of that system of truth, commonly called his kingdom, which he was to erect in the world, and which, therefore, was a fundamental truth, if any truth ever merited to be called such; for unless it be true that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God," there is nothing true in Christianity,--it is all a fable. We must bear in mind, then, in proceeding to the next clause, that it was on this truth, which both Papist and Protestant must confess to be the very first truth in Christianity, that the minds of our Lord and his disciples were now undividedly fixed. "And I say also unto thee," continues our Lord, "that thou art Peter; and upon this rock will I build my Church." Upon what rock? Upon Peter, say Romanists, grounding their interpretation upon the similarity of sound, "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram." Upon the truth Peter had just confessed, say Protestants, grounding their interpretation upon the higher principles of sense, and the reason of the thing. "Upon this rock, says our Lord, not upon thee, the rock, but upon this rock, namely, the truth you have now enunciated in the words, "the Christ, the Son of the living God,"--a truth which has been matter of special revelation to thee, the belief in which has made you truly blessed, and a truth which holds a place so fundamental and essential in the gospel kingdom, that it may be well termed "a rock." What is the Church? Is it not an association of men holding certain truths? The members of the Church are united, not by their belief in certain men, but by their belief in certain principles. As is the building, so must be the foundation: the building is spiritual, and the foundation must be spiritual also. And where, in the whole system of supernatural truth, is there a doctrine that takes precedence, as a fundamental one, of that which Peter now confessed? Remove it, and nothing can supply its place; the whole of Christianity crumbles into ruin. This truth formed the foundation of our Lord's personal teaching; it was this truth which he nobly confessed when he stood upon his trial; this truth formed the sum of the sermons of the apostles and first preachers of Christianity; and this truth it was that constituted the compendious creed of the primitive Church. Thus, in opposition to an interpretation which has nothing but an agreement in sound to support it, we can set an interpretation which is strongly supported by the reason of the thing, by the constitution of the Church as revealed in the New Testament, and by the whole subsequent actings and declarations of the apostles and primitive believers. To choose between these two interpretations appears to us to involve little difficulty indeed,--at least to the man in quest of the single object of truth.



-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 07, 2003.


Jesus is the true shepard of the sheep.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 07, 2003.

Jmj

Andrew, I am deeply disappointed in you. You are a teacher or student at the University of California at Irvine, so you should be smart enough not to fall for (and quote) anti-Catholic bigotry. It is against the rules of this Catholic forum for you to try to push these kinds of lies on us, and it shows no "class" that you cannot argue from your own mind.

Your last "substantive" post has nothing of your of your own thoughts, but is copied-and-pasted from a disgusting book, J. A. Wylie's "History [sic] of the Papacy," which is on-line at an incredibly sick site set up by a woman who is pushing ancient anti-Catholic garbage on [unsuspecting and naive?] people like you.

I found this trashy site because I could see that you were not speaking for yourself. Your post had footnote numbers and no paragraph breaks, indicating that you used copy-and-paste, did not go back and "clean up," and did not insert breaks.
Andrew, if you want to spend time at this Catholic forum, you need to read the rules and abide by them. Please write respectfully (not quoting old-time or modern bigots [Baptist or otherwise]), asking questions about Catholicism and/or trying to persuade us to your point of view, if you disagree on a point of doctrine or practice.

God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 08, 2003.


Thanks, John, for checking Andrew's post.

It's so interesting to me that the Church fathers, and all of their writings consistently, and for centuries upon centuries viewed Peter as the Rock.

No, Andrew, he is not our savior. Jesus is our Savior. But someone has to be in charge of the Church. Someone is always in charge of every church, whether Protestant or Catholic, non-denominational, etc. Yet, for some reason, some Protestants believe that the Catholic Church should be different, and have no Commander in Chief. Our lineage can be traced all the way back to Peter. No other group can claim that.

I guess attacking Peter as the rock, which is clearly taught in scripture and undergirded by Church history, is the best way Protestants can try to decapitate the Church, and validate their own existence.

Anyway, I had posted on another thread a multitude of quotes from the fathers on this subject. Could someone tell me how to resurrect that thread for Andrew's benefit? I think the thread was called "Peter in Patristic Thought."

Thanks and God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 08, 2003.


Ok dudes, all protestants are obviously opposed to the some of the catholic ideals. It is what makes the protestants "protestant". What did the early protestants view the catholic church? Most protestants do hold Christ to be the rock. I already had a problem with some of the ideals of catholicism. Wylie just simply breaks down what most protestants believe. Does that make his explications less credible? No it doesn't. What does even historical non- religious evidence tell about your church i.e. dark ages. How does it make you guys more credible? What's the matter with using a protestant source. You fellows are obviously biased towards your views as well?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Yes I did take the quote from that source I should have cited it. I'm sorry, but it spoke what the protestant views of the rock are. Sorry if i had offended anyone.

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

I am not pushing these views on you, you guys have explicated your point of view, and I'm just expressing what other protestants have to say. I myself am still learning. I certainly did not mean to offend you guys.

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

I absolutely positively did not want to offend anyone in this forum. Please take my word on it. If anyone is offended I am truly sorry.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Lastly, I did not get the wylie quote from that website you linked, John. I got the quote from "what saith the scriptures".com. You can check it out, it may still seem to be very bias to you guys, but it is interesting. Anybody can create a sick website and put protestant view on it.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

peter = petros = loose stone Christ = petra = solid rock Peter confirms later in his epistles that we ourselves also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, royal priesthood, holy nation, a people acquired for a possession. we ourselves also are what ? rocks or stones ?

-- crazy4christ (crazy@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

It is well known that the word "petra", meaning "Rock", is used twice in Matt 16:18. The only reason it appears as "petros" in the first usage is that "petra" is a feminine noun, and therefore had to be masculinized by adding the masculine ending "os", in order to use the word for a man's name. However, what we see in the Greek text is not the word "petra" vs. the word "petros", but rather "petra" in its original feminine form, and "petra" in its masculinized form, which therefore makes it superficially resemble the masculine word "petros". When Jesus told Simon he was "Rock", this grammatical requirement had to be taken into consideration. Even if someone knows nothing whatsoever about Greek grammatical constructs, it should be clear that the two words as they appear in this sentence have the same meaning, simply from the fact that linguistics/scriptural experts who translate the Bible from Greek into any other language always translate both words as having the same meaning. "THOU art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church". THOU means YOU. It does not mean "your testimony of faith". It does not mean "me". We also know from plain common sense that the meaning of both words must be the same. There would be no possible reason for Jesus to change Simon's name to Rock in the first part of His sentence, if he was going to speak of a different Rock in the second part of the same sentence. Furthermore, if Simon was not the Rock on which Jesuis would build, His next statement would become absurd. Why would He give the keys to the kingdom to someone who was not the Rock on whom He would build?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 09, 2003.

Gail, Is this the thread you were looking for? Peter's successors

If so, and you would like it to be on top of the recent answers, simply post a reply to it.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), April 09, 2003.

Nope, that's not the right thread. I'll see if I can find it. I posed a thread of NUMEROUS quotes from the fathers on this subject. I'll see if I can find again.

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 09, 2003.


I found that thread, and topped it. It's "Peter in Patristic Thought" REALLY interested quotes from the fathers!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 09, 2003.


Ok Paul, let me ask you. What would have happened if Peter hadn't been the one who confessed "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"? What would Jesus have said to him? What if Paul had confessed what Peter had said as well? I'm sure at that time all his disciples could have said the same thing except for Judas. Through the other letters, what indication did people like apostle Paul have on the primacy of Peter? And to Gail, you the "fathers" considered Peter to be the rock, but what about the common man who did not have access to the Bible, until the people whom you say are heretics attempted to translate the Bible and make it available to the people. Now scripture is available everywhere and it gives true account. It's funny how one of the major protestant doctrines all hold the same, that Christ is the rock. You say that I speak not for myself, but does that make my source to theologian Wylie's explication more or less credible, why discount it?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

The Catholic Church also holds that Christ is the Rock! ... "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4) And this identity of Christ as The Rock is precisely what makes it so profoundly significant that Christ, THE Rock, used the very SAME term to describe His appointed Vicar, thereby leaving no doubt that Simon was to stand in His place, as His appointed representative, ministering by His authority. THAT is why Simon, and no other man on earth, was given the keys to the Kingdom, the universal symbol of supreme authority. Other apostles had authority to, but they were not Rock, were not the principle support of the Church, and were not the holders of the keys.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 09, 2003.

Dear Paul, the one who has the keys of the kingdom is able to bind on earth which then will be bound in Heaven, correct? Well, clearly St. Matthew chp 18 verse 18, is adressed at to all his disciples which read "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." Does this suggest that they had the keys as well? In fact all those whom choose to follow him and be his disciples, aren't they also given the keys to the kingdom. Jesus came so that we might be able to go straight to the throne of God and ask whatever in Jesus name, correct? Jesus desires all to be his sheep and all to come to know him for he is the door. The "thou" is definitely refering to Peter meaning you, it seems Jesus was more like recognizing and marvelling at what Peter had just said.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Isn't it ironic that up until the Bible began to be widely published and made available, is when Protestantism began to grow larger and larger in question of the certain doctrines of the catholic church. Does that suggest something? What does historical non- christian sources show?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Some of what Jesus says, is it not spiritual and of the spirit? Clearly, many scenarios throughout the Bible, showed his disciples didn't understand some of things Jesus preached, because those things which he taught were of the "spirit" and not to be interpreted literally, correct?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Yes, all the apostles held authority, just as their direct successors, Catholic bishops, do today. Teaching in communion with the Vicar of Christ, they too share in the charism of infallibility, which keeps the teaching of the Church pure and true. That does not suggest in any way that they also received the keys to the Kingdom. The expression Jesus used in appointing Simon as Vicar was a reference to the custom of the time, which all the apostles were familiar with, whereby the master of the house entrusted the keys to his chief steward, and the fact that he held the keys was a symbol of his position as supreme authority, subject only to the master himself. Others in the household might also wield a certain measure of authority, but their authority was always subject to that of the Keeper of the Keys, who was empowered by the master to act with HIS OWN authority. The analogy fits beautifully, as all Jesus' analogies do, once you fully understand them. The fact that ALL the ordained leaders of the Church share in the charism of true teaching clearly does not make them all Keepers of the Keys. There is only one chief steward, on whom the operation of the household rests, in the absence of the master. That's why Jesus used this analogy.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 09, 2003.


Dear Paul when you said . . . in the absence of the master. Well Master Jesus said he would go, but give us the Comforter, the Holy Spirit which guides us to all truth. This is the same Holy Spirit that Christians commune daily with and listen too. He left us with a true guide, the Holy Spirit. Right before verse 18 chp of matthew, Jesus says.. "And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." So verse 18 within context is referring to his believers, the church. chp 19 further suggest that the keys are symbolic of the authority given to his all disciples, or christians to have. "Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven. God is no respector of persons, correct? It is his desire to bless all his children with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That is why we see the devils casted out, the sick healed, lepers cleansed, people that prophesy, and yes also interpret scripture, for I believe it is for all to read. That authority is given to ALL, I believe his children. This makes the notion that only Peter had the "keys" to none effect, when all are called, whom believe. It seems that Peter was made an example of, a disciple of Christ, confessing "Thou art the Christ," which Christianity itself hinges on. Jesus is the Messiah. This is which the rock, the church of the New testament is built on. This is the distinction between Judaism and Christianity.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

I would like to refer to Judiasm for a sec. Was there a single leadership thingy analogious to the papacy for the Jews , God's chosen people whom he brough out of Egypt? From the time of Moses to until Christianity was there a system of that kind of leadership to guide and lead all interpretations of the Jewish manuscripts, even to this day?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Jesus often spoke in parables. Again I said before people often had a hard time trying to understand some of the things he was saying, such as "born again" to niccodemus. Niccodemus responding by asking how could a man enter back into his mother's womb. The things Jesus said were obviously spiritual and not earthy. At first glance of scripture one might misinterpret what the Bible is saying, but as we carefully read, it is like the scriptures show you itself what it means, going beyond just the surface and literal. Of course a lot of the scripture is literal. I am in no wise saying we should digg so deep and look for the deeper meanings to the point we are making stuff up and interpreting it with our own imaginations. It is the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible, so it must be the Holy spirit who interpret it for all whom desire Him and his word preserved in scripture. God knows the heart. We are the church, the elect, his children, the sheep, disciples, preachers, peacemakers, and whorshippers. (not speaking for a Baptist because you can be in a church an not be saved!) .

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Oh yeah that's right who was Moses's "successor"?

-- ANdrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Your saying the son of God has a vicar, but Moses's didn't? Who has been guiding the Jews for the past millenias and why did they not need a vicar?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

The son of God actually needs a vicar, while Moses a mere man chosen by God didn't?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

Moses could not have a "Vicar" because Moses did not act by his own authority, but was only a minister who acted by the power of God. A Vicar is one who is entrusted with the authority of the master. Moses had no personal authority he could entrust to anyone else. He did of course have a successor, Aaron. Otherwise, the Jewish people would have been left without leadership. In some specific situations, Moses acted as a "vicar of Yahweh", speaking for God and acting by His authority. But scripture does not record that Moses received a permanent ordination to that ministry. In contrast, Jesus ordained Simon to a permanent and comprehensive ministry, marked by a specific symbol of absolute authority and a clear sign of permanence - a change of his very name. Jesus, unlike Moses, acted by his own power. He was the "master of the house" free to entrust both his authority and his keys to a personal Vicar.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 09, 2003.

Who were the successors from Moses to Jesus?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

If I'm not mistaken the Jews didn't not become a nation again until 1948 i think? So they were scattered throughout the world, who was the successor for the Jews then an right now? Since most do not yet consider Jesus as their Messiah?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), April 09, 2003.

JoHn thanks for bumping my question, but it ddint get any takers. Its not a trick question or anything I just want to know the answer as what Paul is saying and what the Church says seems to contradict itself. But we know this cannot be the case. So whats the answer someone, perhaps I should try and find out myself????

"Secondly I see you have expressed many times on this thread the necessity of faith for salvation. My question is in regard to Lumen Gentium (sp?)and how "non believers" of "good will" can attain salvation. How does goodwill relate to faith? Is this document saying that these men of goodwill have faith but do not realise it and will be saved? "

ANy thoughts on this how do some "faithless men", attain salvation as on the surface the Pope seems to be saying they can be saved through good works alone (goodwill). Thankyou.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003.


I don't see anything in the current teaching that suggests that mere works can save a person. Good works and good will are not synonymous. I also do not see the Pope speaking of "faithless men". Rather, I see him speaking of those whose faith, through no fault of their own, has not been rewarded with discovery of the fullness of truth, yet who nevertheless sincerely seek God by whatever means are available to them. This is "good will". Such seeking is the responsibility of every person. Those who are indifferent to the truth - including some who may call themselves "Catholic" - or who reject the truth outright, are not doing the will of God. Those who seek the truth with their whole mind and heart and soul and strength are doing the will of God, regardless of whether they succeed in finding what they seek, or not. And those who live their lives doing the will of God are those who find salvation. That, in essence, in my opinion, is what the current teaching states.

The Catechism passage (article 847) reads: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation". The wording used in this teaching - seeking; sincerity; grace; conscience - speak to something much greater than mere works.

This statement takes into account the scriptural teaching of Luke 12:48 ... "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more". And again, the parable of the talents. Not everyone is given the same opportunities to grow in faith. But God, who can read our hearts, deals with each person according to how he/she has responded to what he/she has been given. In the end, those who have produced less because they have had less opportunity to produce it may receive the same reward (the workers in the vineyard). But those who have squandered what they have received - be it great or little - will receive no reward.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.


Thanks Paul

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

It seems our obstinate Andrew comes prepared to fight to the death for the protestant definition of Rock; as if it mattered one bit to the Son of God. It was Jesus Christ who gave Simon the new name by which he would forever after be known. Our Andrew is determined to make the apostle simply Simon again; as far as authority is concerned.

Why is Simon even GIVEN a new name, Andrew? Jesus in the gospels is not known to deal in absurd or pointless tricks. A new name for Simon, be that Rock or any other name is still completely different. Think about it; WHY?

Is Simon different for the Church directly following his reception of the keys of the kingdom? Just because he's Peter? Previously he had been a man of ''unclean lips''. Just one of the recruits. But this was a new calling. He was Peter because Rock is what Our Lord SELECTS for the building of His indestructible Church. Isn't this clear thereafter; as all of them in the gospels begin to follow Peter; once known as Simon?

Christ causes this change Himself. Peter didn't change his own name. Just as Abram never changed his name to Abraham. Nor did Saul the Pharisee change his own name to Paul. We see in these biblical events the will of God, who is free to elevate one man over other men. As Jesus is free. -- Free to call Peter intead of his brother Andrew; or John-- Or instead of anybody else. that's why He named the apostle PETER. Rock. To distinguish him in the Church forever. He is named the first leader, or pope.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 17, 2003.


It's a special day in Forum history!
Eugene "Lazarus" Chavez has returned!
Welcome back, amigo. You should be refreshed and ready to take on all comers.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 18, 2003.

Hi, John---
I appreciate your encouraging words. I recall a number of occasions when I was not supportive of you. Please forgive me.

I hope some of the other veterans of this forum will be pleased to see me back. You could say God gave me a slap in the rump. So I came back; not very bold at all.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.


Eugene, you made my weekend!! Glad you are back!

Love,

Gail

P.S. HAPPY EASTER!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 19, 2003.


Thank you, Gail--
It's great to see you're still with the forum. No one wants to lose your fine contribution. God bless you and have a lovely Paschal holiday.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.

It pains me to see all of you talking about this drivel. Who cares about the bible, God lives in you. If the bible can show you that read it, if you find yourself on this forum and are not of my opinion burn it. All of you are afraid to seek him outside the testimony of others. Love is the way, those who can not live in it need an article of faith to make them feel like they are making the grade when they are not, therefor you have many religion's handing out indulgences by way of specified belief. Is god so small that not believing jesus is his son will land you eternity in hell, sounds kind of human to me. Is God so localized that arabic is his real language like the muslims claim, smacks of ethnocentricity. Maybe God's main concern lies with one group of people, like the jews and their fiction of being the chosen people. When jesus said that those who wanted to follow him must hate his mother and father this meant breaking ties with tradition and culture, which mother and father represent. If christ is God, I will love my neighbor, if he is not I will love my neighbor, if the pope is the vicar, I will love my neirbor, if he is the antichrist, I will love my neighbor, The truth is all who are so commited to articles of faith are weak in love. Mock me, you will just prove my point.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

Hi Polli.

If I were to listen to you, I would not get the intended meaning of the Bible. You have a distorted view of Sciptures. I would suggest that you take some time and read the Bible, then you can start to bash it if you still dare to. "Hate your mother and father..." isn't what you think it means.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


Ooops!

Sorry, I should learn how to read. I should have put "Jolli".

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


I am not bashing the bible, I am bashing those who would turn it into an idol, I have read it thank you, and it is a compilation of men and women, mostly men, who have an inner experience of God through an event or person. So instead of listening to the samething they listen to you listen to them. Cut out the middle man and seek God for yourself, withdraw into your spirit. You want fast answers to hard questions, thats not a bad desire, but any answer that will fill you up with the type of wisdom and love you want comes with introspection of one's own divine soul. Know introspection while the greatest part of God realization is not the only element. Yes, there is scriptural reading and there is even space for ritual, but the only way to assent to the latter two is through the first. How can you say the bible is good? Do you say it because it claims to be good for itself? You do not except that the bible is good because it says so itself, that is circular logic. You accept it because you have God in you and the God in you acknowledges the God in scripture, which was the result of a person who consulted the God in them. Parents as jesus spoke of them did represent culture and tradition that was not conducive the the kingdom of love. That is why he is alway aluding to his real family as those who do the will of God. People placed to much pride in lineage and family status for holiness instead of holiness, just like people on this message board substitute sciptural passages for piety. How many times does jeusus said You heard it say that... But I tell you... Was Jeus anti- scipture? Of course not, but he wanted people to consult the God in them, thus the story of the good samaritan. Every one know what good is but culture and tradition have weighed it down with there own intrest. Jews did not like samaritans (half jews) so Jesus gave them the story to push them beyond there culture. Bashing the bible is saying that it is useless or bad, I am saying it is like a good for inspiration and insight but it is not the totality of God no one thing is, not even self introspection. There is a reason for everything, perhaps God wants you to hear this message. You may think I am self absorbed to think I can deliver a message outside of the bible, but even still the seed of what I said is planted.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

Jolli--
Nothing in your posts is a revelation. You are just simply an agnostic and freethinker. It's all right to preach this to other wags like yourself.

Here we are faithful to God. What your words show is how narcissistic you are; you take for ''drivel'' a Christian's veneration of the Holy Bible, and pollute yourself with real drivel. Practice some humility and others may come to appreciate your ideals. As they are now, they make you a doomed individual.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 14, 2003.


Jolli-

Your tone is abrasive to me, maybe you don't mean to be.....oh, what the hay, you are being abrasive. Lighten up and try to be more like what the Bible teaches us to be like. Be nice! Your points will probably be understood much better if you change your tone a bit.

Do you like people and wish them to understand you or are you just plain angry at anyone who is Catholic?

Your thoughts are confusing to me. I don't believe the Bible is an evil thing as I think that is what you might have said in your reply.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


I am not an agnostic, how silly is that. I tell you to consult the God in you and you say I am an agnostic. I did not say consult the the thing in you that may or may not be God. I do believe, scratch that, I know there is a God. I would not waste my time in this conversation if I did not think there was. Instead of calling my names try to understand what I am telling you. You tell me to be humble in the same breath that you call me a name. Perhaps you should practice first. What I call drivel is not the bible, but the insane and blind worship of it to the point where your focus is winning debates on the intent of which you can never really know anyway. Instead of getting mad try to see the possible merit in what I am saying and things will come together. If you make up in your mind that I am wrong I will be so no matter what. I am not anti christian, bible, or ritual, I just think that you may have a model of spirituality that denigrates those pearls of wisdom that lay outside of your own path. You know what I am saying is right or else you would not be attacking me instead of my ideas. When people challenge our beliefs they challenge those people who gave them to us, the challenge the culture that supports is, they challenge seemingly the goodness of all of the things above. I don't intend to put your religion down or culture for that matter all I am saying is that GOd is in you and you get mad. Tell me something if you think that I am arrogant, or whatever word you used to put me down, did you consult the bible or did you consult the God in you. How ever you rank me, define me, measure me, IT COMES FROM YOU! If you are angry at me, think to yourself why, the think does this idea scare you, make your beliefs less powerful, is it important to have your beliefs all be right. I mean what if there was God the father and his son Jesus and no holy spirit does this really change the heart of the message of Christ which is universal love that does not judge people, (Ideas are OK). A message of faith that moves mountains, of a God that will not let you down. Prior to your religion did God not love us as much. I am just trying to take you out of your comfort Zone so you may see clearly. I have my own comfort zones that I need to come out of, like becoming angry at people such as yourself, when you repond with anger to a new idea, a new wine. I was just like you when I was challenged, my challengers became self absorbed boobs, and believe me some of them were but there were some that gave me new wine. Just remember to matter what you believe it is YOU who believe it, so whatever inside of you that deems something good or bad, benificial or costly is that which should be examined. How about addressing that or any other point that I make instead of telling me that I am arrogant, this, that or the other thing. If I am arrogant and I say that Jesus is a profoundly holly and special being does that detract from my statement. I am arrogant, so 2+2 is not 4, just because I am arrogant, if I say the world is a sphere and not a cube this is wrong because I am arrogant? Please lets deal with the legitimacy of ideas, anything else is beneath me and you, I can deal with you telling me that I even have a dumb Idea just tell me why, leave my character to God.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

It is obvious from the context that Jesus is saying the rock is the fact that He (Jesus) is the son of God. On this fact He (Jesus) would build His church. In the Greek text one can note the shift from Peter(petros) noun nominative masculine singular proper used metaphorically of a soul hard and unyielding, and so resembling a rock, to (petra) noun dative feminine singular a rock, large stone:

The church is not built on Peter but on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. THe gates of Hades will not prevail against it. Obviously the Rock can not be Peter the man.

-- Norbert Fernandez (norbyone1@juno.com), May 14, 2003.


I never said the bible was evil, please read what I said if you want to comment on it, I know its hard with all my typos;.) Look I seem abrasive because your grip on what you think must be is to tight. If a person likes chocolate ice cream and I tell him, lets call him bob, that lime flavored ice cream is better, he may say no, he may agree after tasting them back to back, or he may just say what the heck its not a really big deal. However if I tell bob who is a vegan that our teeth were designed to tear flesh, no matter how calm or nice I say it, it will apear as an attack because of bob's strong vegan beliefs. I don't hate catholics, hell use to be one for 23 years. I have some issuses with it but all in all I think, when taught from its heart, it promotes love. Again speak to my Ideas leave my character to God

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

Jolli- Please laugh at what I'm about to say:

Your writings read like a script for the Camera Guy (Hooper) from the movie Apocalypse Now. I think I got some points from your reply.

Basically, our character has nothing to do with believing in God and that God is in us. Well, I tend to believe that if we believe in God, then God is in us and our character may very well change and begin to exhibit God's teaching and in turn teach others the gospel by our behavior, which our character shows. So, then, it is our character that would be like Jesus. The way Jesus treated others and expects us to treat others as He did. Hey, I like this style of writing. Don't I sound kind of like you?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


Dear Norbert,

If you read the passage, the identity of the Rock becomes completely obvious. Jesus looked directly at the Apostle Simon, and said to him, "Simon, I say to you that YOU ARE ROCK". There is nothing that can be misinterpreted here unless it is your intentional purpose to misinterpret it. The King James version renders it thus ... "And I say also unto thee, That THOU ART PETER, and upon this rock I will build my church"

There are a few crucial facts concerning this passage that you may not understand. First, the name "Peter" is simply an Anglicization of the Greek noun "petra", meaning "rock". Therefore, "Peter" literally means "rock"; and "Thou art Peter" literally means "Thou art Rock". Secondly, the man to whom Jesus spoke these words was named Simon. That had been his name for his entire life, right up to the very moment Jesus spoke these words to him. Jesus looked directly at the Apostle Simon, no-one else, and said TO HIM "I say unto YOU that YOU ARE ROCK", and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church". There can be no doubt as to whom Jesus was identifying as the Rock. The word "THOU" means "YOU", and Jesus was clearly speaking to Simon. Therefore, it is not possible that anyone or anything other than Simon himself was the Rock Jesus was identifying. If anyone should need additional proof of this plainly obvious fact, the Bible repeatedly shows us that the Apostle Simon was THEREAFTER known as "Simon The Rock" ("Simon Peter"), a title he had never been known by until the very moment Jesus made this statement, changing Simon's very name. No honest person can misinterpret this passage. It is completely straightforward.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 14, 2003.


Jolli--
You react defensively because I say you're simply an agnostic & freethinker? That's ''name- calling''--?

Listen to yourself: calling our faith so much ''drivel''. ''You know what I am saying is right or else you would not be attacking me instead of my ideas.'' No; I know you're WRONG-- and no one attacked you. Freethinkers exist (in their own private world), and what else are you? Narcissistic:

''I don't intend to put your religion down or culture for that matter all I am saying is that GOd is in you and you get mad.'' That's narcissism. ''God is in you!'' Meaning, YOU have God in you. You worship something about YOURSELF; and it's narcissism. I call you a name, because I'm putting my finger on it-- and YOUR drivel.

Why you would presume to pass judgment on those who rely on the Bible, when you praise your own folly as if it were the Word of God; --Isn't it self-absorbed? Once more, let's advise you Jolli (beautiful, in French? What could be more flattering to a narcissist?) come down to our level. Show a modicum of self-abnegation. (A fifty-cent word for humility). )

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 14, 2003.


Listen, character is important, I am just telling you not to judge mine, let God do that. That was a simple point, I think you understood that, but are giving me grief (nugies for you). As far as the arogance goes, if claiming to have God in you makes you arrogant Jesus is arrogant. I recall a certain someone telling us that kingdom of God was with in, but I suppose you will say that the kingdom is seperate from God in a cheap attempt at equivication. I also recall a scripture passage tell us that we are the temple of GOd, Gee that's funny using a little logic one might even come up with the crazy idea that God is in us! And I also recall a certain apostle talking about christ in you, but he could not possibly mean God in us that's foolish. And I forgot where does the holy spirit reside, I think Jesus said the fleet center, because he could not have meant us! If I am narcissitic show me the statement that you claim proves this, God in you, is that it? Then the bible is filled with them. Be humble like us you say? That very thought smacks of arrogance. Pride in ones humility is pride. I do not mock those who rely on the bible, I only reject using it as a sole guide to understanding God, how many times to I have to say that, How clear can I make that. The drivel is the need to Package everything in the bible. Just like it would be drivel for you to listen to everything I say as it were the totality of God's essence. I am saying God is bigger than the bible, that's not to say the bible does not have ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT GOD, it just not EVERYTHING O K !!!

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

ARE YE NOT GODS? - Who quoted this piece of scripture when an attempt on his life was made for Blasphemy

-- jolli packward (tdelerme@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

Jolli-

What do you mean by "judge", as in your character?

Does "describe" and "judge" mean the same thing?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.


Jolli ?
It's satisfying at least to have flushed you out. You're now searching the scriptures to find a basis for lofty expostulations against Catholics.

We didn't need that. All Catholic doctrine explicitly teaches the way by which we will abide in God and He abide in us.

As for bibliolatry, I (and some few others) have repeatedly warned against it. Everybody in our forum has warned against sola scriptura. You accuse everybody of falling into these practices. --Why not repeat; --you're wrong coming here with the pretentious jeremiads. Settle down and stop your scolding.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.


I am saying seperate my arguments from my character. If you think my character is lacking fine, so be it, pay attention to my argument. For example If I say introspection is better than submitting to an authority over you, and you say, "boy you are harsh, free thinking, agnostic, or mean spirited for saying that," you are avoiding the point this is called a smoke screen. Forget about the business of categorizing me, defining me, describing me, or judging me just speak to the merit of my argument. Why am I scolding, why am I not arguing? Get it, you are shading your comments with judgement. Either agree or argue against is you might say, "listen authority is how one know's there self," if that was your rebuttle, get it? As for flushing me out, please. I have no objection to quoting scripture. You seem to miss the man point to let me put in caps for you (when I put things in caps I am not yelling I just want you to pay special attention) YOU LIVE BY SCRIPTURE AND BY CATHOLIC DOCTRIN BUT THE ONE THING YOU FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT IT IS THE GOD IN YOU THAT EITHER REJECTS SCRIPTURE OR ACCEPTS IT. IT IS THE GOD IN YOU THAT EITHER ACCEPTS OR REJECTS CATHOLIC DOCTRIN. FOR EXAMPLE IF THE POPE SAID ITS OK TO USE VIOLENCE TO PROSELYTIZE, YOU WOULD HOPEFULLY NOT AGREE (please keep in mind when you respond I am not saying that the current pope is of this opinion, this is a hypothetical)GUESS WHAT DURING THE INQUISITION MANY PEOPLE UNDER BLIND SUBMISSION TO THE POPE THIS HAPPENED, SAME THING WITH THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION WHERE JOHN HASS ALONG WITH COUNTLESS PROTESTANTS WERE BURNED AT THE STAKE, WHICH THIS CURRENT POPE SINCERELY APPOLOGIZED FOR. All I am saying is study for yourself what is good or bad, because guess what, you do it anyway by saying yes to catholic doctrin. Your yes is yours it comes from you and not Rome. Realize this and you will start judging matter of right and wrong for yourself. Think and don't lie, when you either agreed with me or dessented did you look at the chatachism or did you consult your self.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

Jolli-

How do you know what God expects of us?

How do you know what is right or wrong?

Do you compare your morals to other morals, or what?

Do you have a doctrine of your own?

How do you know if your beliefs are in accordance with God?

I can't find your core source, are you a prophet?

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.


Jolli--
You mean well, but

''I am not saying that the current pope is of this opinion, this is a hypothetical)GUESS WHAT DURING THE INQUISITION MANY PEOPLE UNDER BLIND SUBMISSION TO THE POPE THIS HAPPENED, SAME THING WITH THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION WHERE JOHN HASS ALONG WITH COUNTLESS PROTESTANTS WERE BURNED AT THE STAKE, WHICH THIS CURRENT POPE SINCERELY APOLOGIZED FOR. All I am saying is study for yourself what is good or bad, because guess what, you do it anyway by saying yes to Catholic doctrine.''

--Is a load of crap. If you have no grasp of the facts, don't impose your views on us.

''Study for yourself what is good or bad, because ''guess what'', you do it anyway by saying yes to Catholic doctrine--'' --What kind of gibberish is this?

Our Pope sincerely apologised, not for what you like to think was bad doctrine. He expressed sorrow for the sins of Christians who did NOT keep the Holy Gospel. He has no other reason to apologise; the Church is blameless.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.


Rod I comend you for understanding my position and raising the debate to a level I want to enter into with you. Chavez I really am not trying to diss you, but your dwelling over elementary points that are fairly obvious. Accepting the bible or any other holy script is a judgement that comes outside of the bible or any other other holy script. Again, really I am not trying to be snide, but I want to focuss on Rod for that excellent reply using plenty reason(not to say that you, chavez are not reasonalble, it just seems a bit personal between you and I). Rod what you said was phenomenal and I hope to match the caliber of you reply. The answer is no, I am not a prophet or anyone special in the sense on being specially selected out by God. Having said that I think it is a scarry proposition to ask what is your source, because at times it seems as if it is all arbitrary. It is like when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Ishic (I know I mispelled that)Abrahan had to make a choice with out comfort, with out someone over him saying, " this is what is right do it." This is what is right. I personally think no matter what he chose if he chose it with a sincere heart God would have accepted. If He chose whatever course of action with a bad one God would have rejected. I'll elucidate, If Abraham chose to sacrifice his son thinking God would give him power and position, God would be displeased, If he chose to not do it, because he wanted to be the father of many nation through ihsac and in saving his son he would save his fame, God would be displeased. However if Abraham sacrafic his son out of faith that God would work this seemingly evil deed into a good purpose as he did God would be pleased as he was, I belive that if Abraham also said no, but out of a heart breaking love for his son he would also pass the test. Intentions are very important. There are many sayings, like the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is a bit of wisdom in saying that, but intentions and inner reflection alway rule the day. For example if I smack you, because you disagree, I have commited and evil, but if I smack you to revive you from unconsciousness or hysteria this is a good deed. It is a very brave and thoughtful question you asked Rod and I am proud of you for having enough daring to do so instead of getting deffensive. Even if you disagree with me please, for the love of GOd, don't stop produce beautiful thoughts like the last repley. I believe that deep down inside we really do know, like when you told me to laugh at a comment you made, you were purposefully trying to defuse what seemed to be an emotional argument from turning ugly. You didn't have to consult any text I imagine you just knew some how that it was good to do, and it was it did calm me a bit. Rod please respond.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

I'm sure rod will soon respond, Jolli. I only intrude again seeing you say: Rod--- I hope to match the caliber of you reply. The answer is no, I am not a prophet or anyone special in the sense on being specially selected out by God. Having said that I think it is scary to ask what is your source, because at times it seems as if it is all arbitrary''.

That's a wonderful reply. Much better than to enter saying, ''It pains me to see all of you talking about this drivel. Who cares about the bible, God lives in you. If the bible can show you that, read it, if you find yourself on this forum and are not of my opinion burn it.''

Quite a switch! Now we see if my time with you was a waste?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.


Strong coffee helps a person who is hung over, not water, once they are stablized water is best.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

Strong coffee helps a person who is hung over, not water, once that person is stablized water is best.

-- jolli packward (lighttoeye@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

Hi Jolli.

Please don't think that I will be ignoring you if I don't reply imediately. My schedule is crammed with school concerts and stuff. I will answer you soon though. I do like the tone we've taken.

When I read the Bible I spend days thinking about what I've read. I try to see the message in the interaction with situations and people. I investigate. It is notable that you've studied the Old Testament. For me, it wasn't so much Abraham's obedience in question that struck me as the most important thing--it was the prophecy of the sacrifice of the son: Jesus Christ.

I'll write more later...

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.


Hello folks. Didn't the catholic church a few centuries ago say that the universe revolved around the earth and that it was the center of the universe? Does it hold this to be true today, despite our current belief that clearly earth is not the center of the universe? If your church forefathers held that to be true, do you guys still believe that the earth is the center of the universe? Should this belief still be held true by you guys today? If this theory that the universe does not revolve around the earth is true (I think so) then I wonder what else your father's have said in the past that were not credible.

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Also what are your insights on the Great Schism. When there were three different popes, one in France the other in Rome and a third had to be brought in to arbitrate the other two which were vying for power?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

The Bible is good. If you believe that the Bible is truly divinely inspired, then it would be reasonable to say that it is completely dependable on and that through God's invisible hand, He has preserved it for us. With all grace and desire for the Truth and love for Jesus Christ as well as all of you. --Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

How can you try an discredit the King James Version? This has been evaluated by scholars and theologians as the most accurate and some say word for word Bible to date in comparison to the Original texts.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

If we really think about it, I mean, with or without Martin Luther don't you think Reformation was evitable? As mankind progressed toward the future, along with the invention of the printing press and new technologies, there is no way that the Bible could have not become avaiable to the common eventually. It had to begin someday and Luther had the boldness along with many people of the congregation at wittenburg to rise up despite the heavy consequences and opposition. Lets think further. How much would human history since time of reformation until now be different if reformation never happened? Anyone care to take a shot? Would Protestant America have been much different? What would this world be like? ---Later everyone

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Ay Jolli is confusing me!! LOL.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

I also have a question for everyone. This is the issue on the eucharist. Is it actually suppose to turn into Jesus's real flesh and real blood or is it symbolic? If it is, then I have some questions that maybe some can answer. Over there you have an atheist who spends all his life trying to disprove that there is a God and in the catholic church you have bread and blood turning into His real flesh and blood, over here you have a person who wonders if God really exists and if He does who is He and here in the catholic church you have bread and wine turning into Jesus;s real flesh and blood, and finally you have the Protestants who left the catholic church a while ago, but wait a minute bread and wine turn into Jesus's real flesh and blood. My question is, why are there still protestants atheists and agnostics when bread and wine is turning into real flesh and blood? I'm sorry Mr. Atheist, but bread and wine turning into real flesh and blood, sorry skippy there IS A GOD. Shouldnt the whole world be catholic since we obseve bread and wine turning into the real flesh and blood of Christ everytime at mass? Where are the scientists at to find out the scientific reasons behind this phenomena? Thanks guys. ---Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

andrew,

there is no scientific observation, except for the few miracles occurring. science deals with physical change, whereas the transubstantiation is a change in essense. that is, the bread is changed into the body while its physical manifestation (called its accident) remains unchanged. its physical aspects remain the same, but it IS changed. people can choose not to believe this, but that is their loss.

Christ said 'i came for all' meaning that His salvation is open to all of us. we can all be saved through our reliance on Him and adherance to the directives of His church.

he also said 'i came for many' meaning that though salvation is open to all, not all will be saved. those who do not repent and return to the sacred heart are lost to us.

so your question is why dont people have faith? because they have no perception beyond what is physical, and dont recognize the essense of what is.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2003.


Dear Andrew:
Is the importance of your contribution here so profound that you must post multiple times in succession; each time more sarcastic than the one before?

Let's calm your horses, and give people a chance to reply to the lead question, then post new ones. Are you afraid an answer might come, and your logic might crumble before our faith?

--It will. Because you began with a false premise. The Church ''forefathers'' had nothing to do with science. You flatly say, ''Didn't the Catholic Church a few centuries ago __say that__ the universe revolved around the earth'' --She did NOT ''and that it was the center of the universe? Does it hold this to be true today, despite our current belief that clearly earth is not the center of the universe?''

The Church was not a valid authority on any worldly science. What a scientist wrote, published and taught was relevant to the Church only insofar as the writing, publishing and teaching affected the faith of her people.

Her own teaching had GOD for the center of all Creation. He certainly IS. He's the center because He created the solar systems and the universe. It's an article of faith; because it's REVEALED.

When scientists began to spread the news--''No truth to anything the older generations --Not even Christians, have ever believed,''

Then, the Church intervened. It was not to make a scientific statement, but to call a halt to something injurious to the faith.

Galileo was ordered not to teach. He was ordered not to oppose the religious authority of the Church. He was kept under house arrest, not in prison.

And, by the way, Andrew: Galileo died a faithful Catholic.

In retrospect, we all see the Pope should not have interfered as far as scientific truth was concerned; If only he hadn't feared for his people's faith. But he was mistaken to think he could stop all scientific research. That was a human fault on his part. Not a sign of fallibility. Because his proper calling is to stand up for Christ's teaching. That means FAITH and MORALS.

I ask your attention to this phrase you use above: ''despite our current belief that clearly earth is not the center of the universe?''

Yes; CURRENT belief. You have the benefit of hindsight at this point in time. You are smug and certain the earth isn't the center of the universe. Why? Because you have more intelligence than the dumb Catholics? No-- a Catholic discovered the truth --For YOU. You wouldn't have discovered BEANS, with all yuor brains.

Now, you come to us with such self-assurance; to show us how stupid the Popes were? They weren't stupid, Andrew. They just disn't have 20-20 hindsight, like we do. Think, before you judge!

Now that we have given your first premise a shake-up; what else would you like to know?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 01, 2003.


So when Jesus performed the first communion at the last supper, I dont know if he actually ate the bread and drank the wine to, but if he did that means he ate himself and drank his own blood?

-- andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Well, I had a lot to say. Please stop making assumptions about me my questions are decent. And I never said your fathers word dumb, thanks for putting words into my mouth eugene, thats just great. I hope ya know Luther didnt really change anything. Protestantism has preserved the Faith Luther ridded it of many errors.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

And I wasnt being sacasstic either. Thank you.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Andrew: --You say, '' I dont know if he actually ate the bread and drank the wine to, but if he did;''

Hey-- If you don't KNOW, don't put words in Jesus mouth. He knew what He was doing, thank you.

''stop making assumptions about me my questions are decent. And I never said your fathers word dumb, thanks for putting words into my mouth.'' You have no decent questions. They're misleading questions. I say you think Catholics are dumb to believe the teachings of our Church. If we aren't, and the teachings are true; admit it.

If you're saying we are, then I'll give you some lessons. You ought to do something about your spelling. You spell like a dummy. There are many good protestants who are intelligent; but you seem the kind who need to go back to school. Or, are you a 12 year- old? I believe you might be a 12-13 year-old. I can tell by your logic. Have you ever read a book? Yeah; ''Oh The Places We'll Go'' by Dr. Seuss? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 01, 2003.


Well I guess Eugene knows everything. First, just because Eugene says Galileo was a catholic whats that suppose to imply? It doesn't sound as handy dandy as you make it seem. Why am I misleading, just because I ask some questions that are worthy enough for a decent answer your going to deem me misleading? Please tell me what is so misleading about them? Just because I have an opposing view than yours and some of my questions you must admit you DON'T have answers to. I came here to get some unbiased answers. The name of this forum is misleading as well "Ten Protestant Biblical scholars interpret.." , so WHERE ARE ALL THE PROTESTANT SCHOLARS AT? If there were some then we would have less of a one sided debate. I came here the first time thinking that this was a protestant forum. Then I get put down by Eugene who says I am dumber than dirt. What kind of mess is this?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

By the way eugene. I am still in school buddy, a freshman at UCI. Slowly workin my way up and "proving all things, holding on to that which is good" and not just readily accepting what anybody says, by finding out first hand. So um please stop making fun of me, its unchristian like, for anyone professing Christ. Understand my point of view as well.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

andrew,

your questions are misleading because you ask those that are meant to entrap us and try to back us into a corner. or was that not your motive of 'if its true, how come there are non believers?' that is not a question, its what logistitians call a bait.

eugene,

i would peg him at older than twelve. i was forced to attend my moms protestant church for several years before i was old enough and they all used the same logic as that, regardless of age or position. seems spiritual maturity is lacking in some (cough cough most cough) protestant churches.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2003.


Online debates are just so nice don't you think? Just a bunch of us sitting around the computer with nothing better to do. LOL.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

too true andrew, but you still have not addressed my answers to your first three questions.

for your next question... yes, i suppose that if Jesus so chose to partake of the body and blood, that he would in effect be consuming his own body and blood.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2003.


Hey Paul, Making more false accusations. Whoever else is in this forum please attend a protestant church and not take someones biased word for it. Some times you just have to find out for yourself. By the way there are more former catholics than former protestants. This holds to be true too, I know quite a bit of people that are former catholics. Other catholics that I've talked to or "professed" catholics say "Yeah I'm catholic, but I'm not really in to it". What is this mess. Paul I can't believe you had the audacity of putting down protestants. I admit some like pentecostals can get wild, but they are not as you depict they are. ---Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Eugene I dont worry about my spelling, why should I?? This is just a online debate, for goodness sake.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

You ask: If this theory that the universe does not revolve around the earth is true (I think so) then I wonder what else your father's have said in the past that were not credible.

A: The whole world believed this at the time, not just the Church. Before that, the whole world believed the earth was flat. The only reason Protestants didn't believe these ideas to be true is that there were no Protestants. The Church believed it because it was a matter of science, and the most prominent scientists of the time taught that this was fact. Today the Church - and the rest of the world - believe that the earth orbits the sun, for exactly the same reason. Whether the Church has made erroneous statements on matters of science is of no consequance, since it is only matters of faith and morals upon which Our Lord and Savior has placed His own divine guarantee of truth.

You ask: Also what are your insights on the Great Schism. When there were three different popes, one in France the other in Rome and a third had to be brought in to arbitrate the other two which were vying for power?

A: There were never three Popes, though there was one time when three men laid claim to the title - the Pope and two antipopes. If I get a few thousand people to sign a petition saying I am President of the USA, does the country thereby have two presidents? False claims by false claimants obviously do not result in multiple popes or presidents.

You ask: The Bible is good. If you believe that the Bible is truly divinely inspired, then it would be reasonable to say that it is completely dependable on and that through God's invisible hand, He has preserved it for us."

A: Indeed the Bible is completely dependable as a source of objectively valid information, requiring equally valid interpretation to produce reliable truth. But no written work is dependable if you just hand it to people and let them guess what it means. That's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and a divinely ordained Church to interpret the scriptures. Without such authoritative interpretation, both documents would be of little practical value. One big difference though - the Supreme Court doesn't have a divine promise that whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven.

You ask: How can you try an discredit the King James Version? This has been evaluated by scholars and theologians as the most accurate and some say word for word Bible to date in comparison to the Original texts. " A: With all due respect - baloney! The original KJV is the least reliable version still in general use. Which means that any version that was even worse than the KJV has been completely rejected by all, even Protestants. The International Bible Society, a Protestant group, published a list of 3,400 translational errors in the original KJV. The translators appointed by King James simply were not up to the task. They were not expert in the required languages, and consequently made all sorts of blunders, some of them downright ridiculous, such as taking the Hebrew expression for "horned beasts" and translating it as "unicorns" instead of "oxen" as every reliable translation renders it. The Revised KJV corrected a number of the most glaring errors, but not all of them by any means.

You ask: If we really think about it, I mean, with or without Martin Luther don't you think Reformation was evitable? As mankind progressed toward the future, along with the invention of the printing press and new technologies, there is no way that the Bible could have not become avaiable to the common eventually".

A: This shows a basic lack of understanding about the underlying causes of the Protestant Rebellion. It had nothing to do with the Bible and its availability. Yes, the reformation of the Holy Catholic Church was inevitable with or without Luther, since there were real areas which needed reform, many Church leaders recognized that need, and Luther didn't contribute anything to the reform when it took place, since he had already left the Church of God to form his own religion. As for widespread distribution of the Holy Bible, that also had nothing to do with Luther. It had to do with the invention of the printing press, which just happened to occur during Luther's lifetime. The first book printed with this new technology was the Holy Bible. It was printed by the inventor of the printing press, Johannes Guttenberg, a Catholic. The Bible had already been translated into 14 languages by the Holy Catholic Church, before Luther was BORN. But general distribution would hardly have mattered much since 95% of the population of Europe at the time was illiterate.

You ask: How much would human history since time of reformation until now be different if reformation never happened? Anyone care to take a shot? Would Protestant America have been much different?"

A: Yes, "Protestant America" would be very different indeed! It would not exist! Christianity would still be united, just as Jesus said He intended it to be. There would not be thousands of heretical, contradictory manmade sects, all claiming to possess the truth of the gospel. All Christians would worship in spirit and in truth - the fullness of truth which Jesus gave to His own Church.

You ask: Is it actually suppose to turn into Jesus's real flesh and real blood or is it symbolic?

A: I thought you read the Bible. The answer couldn't be clearer ... ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink." (John 6:55) What part of "true" don't you understand? Or, if you prefer your KJV ... "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed".

You ask: Shouldnt the whole world be Catholic since we observe bread and wine turning into the real flesh and blood of Christ everytime at mass?

A: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So when Jesus performed the first communion at the last supper, I dont know if he actually ate the bread and drank the wine to, but if he did that means he ate himself and drank his own blood?

A: Yes, that is what it would mean. However, if you read your Bible you will see that He gave His flesh and blood TO THEM (Matt 26:26). The Bread of Life had no reason to consume the Bread of Life. God in the flesh had no reason to seek grace or become godly. We do.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 01, 2003.


Thanks for being boastful you guys above all things.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Regarding the earth is flat part you said. The church should have known that it wasnt. In the Book of Job it read that the 'earth is round and that it hangs on nothing'. And also regarding John 6:55. We know full well that not everything in scripture is to be taken literally. For example, Nicodemus and Jesus regarding being born again. The man thought Jesus was being literal saying, how can a man reenter into his mothers womb? Jesus meant a spiritual rebirth. Likewise I'd have to say the same with respect to that verse. Are we really suppose to eat Jesus or do the communion in REMEMBERANCE of what He has done for us, by evaluated ourselves as a Christian? There are a lot of modern versions of the Bible that show inaccuracies as well. And yes, most protestants hold the King James to be the most accurate word for word, we also have to remember the type of language at the time as well, Old English which is a bit different than the english which we speak today? Did you know the James says ass too? Those translaters had no reason to tamper with meanings from the original texts, Textus receptus and masoretic. They wanted the truth to be known. The reason you hate it so much is because it is a protestant Bible and what it speaks in the Epistle dedicatory, it gives us a clue of what state the church was in at the time.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

People don't become godly through eating bread. It begins with a change in the heart.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink." ,"For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed ." seem to mean the same thing to me. meat is food.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Wow Paul, you said you mother "forced" you to go to church. What word. Of course you were her child I'm sure she forced you to do a lot of things like she probably "forced" you to go to school, "forced" you to clean your room, and even "forced" you to eat spinage. You were the little boy and she was the mother, therefore she was the authority figure and has every right until your all grown up. Maybe she was not a good mother, maybe she wasan abusive mother or something, then I would question what kind of protestant church did you attend, I hope it wasnt a cult. ---Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Andrew: --Once more I ask; why must you shoot posts out like a machine-gun? Can't you hold off until a reply appears, before you lob another inane remark?

Go back to your question; WHERE ARE ALL THE PROTESTANT SCHOLARS AT? If there were some then we would have less of a one sided debate.''

Yet, you're posting all the words here, and can't let others get in an answer before you're at it again. That's a one-sided debate.

''By the way,'' you said, ''there are more former Catholics than former protestants. This holds to be true too, I know quite a bit of people that are former Catholics.''

Oh, my. Well, there are easily 500 million Catholics already in the history books, Andrew. The Church started around 33 A.D., on a Pentecost.

Your protestant camp arrived around 1,500 years later as heresies and still results in many souls converted back into the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church draws your kind back by simply preaching the same Gospel preached since then by the holy apostles! Other catholics that I've talked to or "professed" catholics say "Yeah I'm catholic, but I'm not really in to it". What is this mess. Paul I can

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 01, 2003.


I'm not a heretic. Protestant=a protesting catholic. We disagree with some of the early church's practice as well as the pope. I believe there is actually more than 500 million catholics, far greater than protestants, very true.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 01, 2003.

Actually over a billion, but who's counting?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 01, 2003.

No, Andrew; not a ''protesting'' Catholic. A heretic and out of the Catholic fold. One who protests against any teaching of the apostles is in heresy.

You have no other link to the apostles' faith except the Church. Since you reject her core teachings, you are as the Publican and the heathen. These are the words of Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 01, 2003.


yes andrew, forced to attend catholic church.

after my parents divorced and annuled, my dad converted to the catholic faith. so did i. i was about 8 at the time. being that my dad was catholic, my mom took on this thing of hating all things catholic. i believe in attending church every sunday... keeping the sabath holy. the only way i could do this with my mother was to go to her church, because she refused to drop me off at the catholic church along the way. i chose catholicism as a religion and i had protestantism shoved down my throat for years. that all stopped when i got my liscense and could drive to my own church, but i've been around the protestants long enough to know almost any arguement you can through at us.

by the way, your little jib on the world not being the center of the universe... theres really no scientific proof of that. so i guess your arguement there is a little invalid.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.


correction: forced to attend protestant church.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

Excellent review, Paul. It ought to be revealing to a soul like Andrew. You've experienced both worlds, and truly see the great differences.

If your father lives today, offer him all your thanks for saving you from a life of unhappiness, with no spiritual consolations.

Speaking of which; it now strikes me as significant:

No wonder most protestants are enthralled with the Holy Bible. The Bible is their sole consolation in this world! By the work of misguided and evil men they lost all sacramental life, all spiritual communion with the saints and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. They lost Our Holy Mother's consolation, and all appreciation of her guidance in our lives. In all this lifetime, their spiritual diet is restricted to only what little they manage to understand from the scriptures.

Yes, there is clearly a sustenance to be had from Bible study. However, when the knowledge of scripture is corrupted by false doctrines, a major part of the Bible's power is denied them. That leaves them only prayer. Fine; God hears prayers. But when the unfortunate ones fall into sin, not even their prayers are sufficient to alleviate spiritual hunger & thirst. All grace is gone and forgotten! Only the Bible remains, and so, many worship it as an idol.

Why else would all of them who come here anxiously quote verses, and demand text-proofs, and reject whatever isn't explicitly stated in scripture. This is why they can't bear mention of the Catholic Church. All of them imagine she's in denial of the Holy Bible; when actually, she gave us the Bible! And that's why they reject her true interpretations of biblical texts; since so much of it bears out her legitimate authority.

It's a vicious circle keeping them away from Christ's eternal teachings. But since all they have is this Bible, corrupt it though they might; it's a form of consolation.

We must pray constantly that God gives them grace to return at last!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 02, 2003.


Well just let me give you my reasons I disagree with you guys: 1. I disagree with the Pope being called the holy father. holy father is mentioned a few times in scripture and always being referred to as God.

2. I disagree with people bowing down before the pope and people kissing his hand. Regardless of what you say it actually suggests, it is an act of worship. Acts 10 verse 25-26 "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and whorshipped him. But Peter took him up saying stand up I myself also am a man."

3. I disagree with praying to saints. God is omnipresent and hears all, why would you need to have saints mediate? Whatever we pray we pray in the name of Jesus for he is the only mediator between God and man.

4. I disaagree with hailing Mary, this was said by an angel to give her the message of God, I don't think it was ever meant to be uttered by Christians. I disagree with praying to Mary, that idolizes her. She was just the child bearer.

5. I disagree with you saying that protestants idolize scripture. Studying scripture allows for better understanding of God and the early church. God knows my heart and why I like to read scripture.

6. I disagree with bowing to statues. One of the commandments was no graven images of heaven above or earth beneath.

7. I disagree with calling priests father.

8. I disagree with purgatory, it isn't mentioned in the new testament.

9. Finally, Scripture is like a set of instructions, it is not a god, but it is the words of God in written form. Nothing the church practices should be external to scripture.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 02, 2003.


Dear Andrew:

1. I disagree with the Pope being called the holy father. holy father is mentioned a few times in scripture and always being referred to as God

A: Scripture uses the word "father" in several different contexts ...

- in reference to God;

- in reference to male parents;

- in reference to the prophets (... to confirm the promises given to the fathers - Rom 15:8);

- in reference to ancestors, whether related by blood or not ("The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers" -Acts 3:13)

- in reference to spiritual leaders (For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel - 1 Corinthians 4:15)

So obviously, referring to the Pope as "father" is completely in line with scripture.

Scripture also uses the word "holy" To describe all kinds of persons ...

- God

- John the Baptist ("Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man" - Mark 6:20)

- angels ("when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" - Luke 9:26)

- prophets (" As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old" - Mark 8:38) ... ("you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets" - 2 Peter 3:2)

- ordinary Christians ("He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him" - Ephesians 1:4) ... ("Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling" - Hebrews 3:1) ... "So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved" - Colossians 3:12)

- women specifically (For in this way in former times the holy women also - 1 Peter 3:5)

So you see that the term "holy" is also completely scriptural as applied to the Pope. Therefore the title "Holy Father", which is merely a combination of these two biblical terms, is fully supported by scripture.

2. I disagree with people bowing down before the pope and people kissing his hand. Regardless of what you say it actually suggests, it is an act of worship. Acts 10 verse 25-26 "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and whorshipped him. But Peter took him up saying stand up I myself also am a man."

A: Regardless of what it suggests to you, the fact is, bowing is a common expression of respect in many cultures. Not long ago, the expected manner in which a gentleman greeted a lady was to bow and kiss her hand - a custom brought from Europe. Men may have had more respect for women in those days, but I doubt that worship was involved. Japanese people greet each other by bowing, but do not worship one another. If you met the Queen of England in a formal setting and didn't bow properly, you would be considerted a dolt. The Vicar of Christ is deserving of great respect, but our current Pope is just as aware as the first Pope was that he is a man, and unworthy of worship. Indeed, if all Christians possessed the same degree of humility as John Paul II, the world would be a very different place.

3. I disagree with praying to saints. God is omnipresent and hears all, why would you need to have saints mediate? Whatever we pray we pray in the name of Jesus for he is the only mediator between God and man.

A: I'm sure this has already been explained many times over, but - saints do not mediate. Mediation was completed on the cross by the One Mediatpr between God and man. Saints and other Christians pray for one another, or INTERCEDE. They do not mediate. Anyone who calls himself a Christian, and is not an intercessor, will surely be judged for his selfishness and lake of Christian charity. Do you ever ask others to pray for you? If not, you are a strange Christian. If so, why, since God is omnipresent and hears all??

4. I disagree with hailing Mary, this was said by an angel to give her the message of God, I don't think it was ever meant to be uttered by Christians. I disagree with praying to Mary, that idolizes her. She was just the child bearer.

A: If you don't like "hail", just say "hello", or "greetings", which mean exactly the same thing. It is normal to greet someone when you approach them in order to speak to them.

5. I disagree with you saying that protestants idolize scripture. Studying scripture allows for better understanding of God and the early church. God knows my heart and why I like to read scripture.

A: I agree that such a statement goes too far. Protestants worship the same God as the True Church, and no-one else. However, they worship Him according to manmade traditions, not according to the stated will of God. And, Protestants do vastly over-emphasize the role of scripture, especially considering that all they really have is their own personal guesses regarding its meaning. Since their founders rejected the only real sources of authority God provided, it is understandable why they try to force scripture to be an authority - it is all they have left. However, 450 years of fragmentation and doctrinal chaos should be adequate to demonstrate that such an approach just doesn't work. If God intended scripture to be the sole source of Christian truth, He would have said so. He didn't.

6. I disagree with bowing to statues. One of the commandments was no graven images of heaven above or earth beneath.

A: No rational person bows to inanimate objects. Bowing, again, is a sign of respect. It is not the statue that is respected, but the living person represented by the image. The whole purpose of the image is to help you focus on the person - just like pictures of your family on the wall at home. Have you ever taken your wife's picture out of your wallet and looked at it fondly, while you were away from her? Used it to help you think of her? Have you ever kissed her picture? Have you ever fallen in love with her picture? Hopefully the answer to the last question is "NO" - you only love the one represented by the image. But "yes" would be very appropriate for the other questions.

7. I disagree with calling priests father.

A: See number 1 above. And if you need another scripture, try this one: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). You see, Peter, like Paul, considered himself "father" to those he had catechised.

8. I disagree with purgatory, it isn't mentioned in the new testament.

A: Well, of course the idea that every Christian truth must be mentioned in the New Testament is, itself, a modern tradition of men, which no-one ever heard of before the 16th century. Still, there are New Testament indications of Purgatory. Jesus indicated that sins can be forgiven either here on earth, or in some manner after leaving earth (Matt 12:32). Paul says that a believer who has neglected Christian works may still be saved, but only as by passing through fire (1 Cor 3:15). Obviously this can't refer to hell, as there is no escept from hell, and no-one there can be saved. It also cannot refer to heaven, since there is no suffering in heaven, and "passing through fire" sure sounds like suffering. Some of the strongest teaching about Purgatory in the Holy Bible is in the Old Testament. The pre-Christian Jews also received from God the truth of purification after death, and included it in their scriptures. You however have been deprived of that part of the Word of God by an arrogant Catholic priest who removed it by his own authority in the 16th century. 2 Macc 12:43-45 recommends praying for the dead that they might be freed of their sins, a biblical command which Jews still practice today, and which Christians have practiced for 2,000 years.

9. Finally, Scripture is like a set of instructions, it is not a god, but it is the words of God in written form. Nothing the church practices should be external to scripture.

If you really do find all your beliefs in scripture as you claim, then please give me a scripture to support that final statement of yours. Where does the Bible say that the Church can't do or teach anything that is not in the Bible? This is a rather important question, as your entire approach to Christian living rests upon it. If the Bible doesn't specifically say that the Bible alone is to be our guide, then the very foundation of your "bible-based religion" is an unbiblical principle. The Bible does say that WHATSOEVER the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. "Whatsoever" obviously is not restricted to what is found in the pages of the Bible. In fact, it is not restricted at all. It is the most general, all-inclusive term Jesus could have used. The Bible does say that a human being, the appointed Vicar of Christ, holds the keys to the kingdom - full authority. The Bible does say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So, if there is a passage I am missing here, which overrides and nullifies all of those statements by God Himself, please direct me to it. Oh, and I am already familiar with 2 Tim 3:16. I already know that scripture is inspired, and I already know that it is profitable. That's not the point. Where are we told that scripture is be our ONLY source of Christian beliefs, and that we can't do or teach anything that is not in the Bible? Or is this just another manmade tradition???

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 02, 2003.


Eugene, I'll tell him you said thanks. im actually only twenty now, so i expect my dad to remain around for some time... thanks big Paul for your go, my turn... andrew,
like ive said, i know just about any arguement you can throw at me, so here we go... 1. I disagree with the Pope being called the holy father. holy father is mentioned a few times in scripture and always being referred to as God. the verse you speak of "call no one on earth your father" utilizes the word ABBA. it means heavenly father, and bears no relation to the aramaic or greek word for father on earth. funny thing is, this is a reverse synonym problem. see, there are about six different words for father in the vernacular language the Bible was written in, each with a different subtle meaning. but there is only one word for father in our language. you take the word FATHER at face value, when you should be considering the word ABBA, or the certain context of the word FATHER. 2. I disagree with people bowing down before the pope and people kissing his hand. Regardless of what you say it actually suggests, it is an act of worship. actually, bowing down and kissing the popes hand, regardless of what you say it suggests, is a sign of respect... not an act of WORSHIP. the problem is that you are raised in a church where bowing down and praying are the ONLY forms of worship you have. therefore you mistakenly consider ALL prayer, ALL respect as worship. your scripture quote is innacurate. the bow to peter was not wrong, but the worship was. when we bow to the pope we do not worship. oh but that you could know the true worship of a catholic. it would fill you with the Holy Spirit and empoyer you to great faith. 3. I disagree with praying to saints. God is omnipresent and hears all, why would you need to have saints mediate? Whatever we pray we pray in the name of Jesus for he is the only mediator between God and man. ever ask a friend to pray for you? i thought so. if we are all one family in the body of Christ, why is it so wrong to ask a saint (a friend, a fellow member of the body of Christ) to pray for us? contrary to your belief, our death from this body does not sever us from our ability to pray, or to know the suffering of the world. how great a comfort to know we have bretheren who lived their earthly life pleasing the Lord to pray for us. 4. I disaagree with hailing Mary, this was said by an angel to give her the message of God, I don't think it was ever meant to be uttered by Christians. I disagree with praying to Mary, that idolizes her. She was just the child bearer. you can really see my answer to your point three for this one. mary is NOT just the child bearer. she was the MOTHER OF GOD. NO one could even begin to influence Christ's, but when his mother asked him, he was willing to change his plans. john the baptist called leapt at her approach, and she was called blessed among women. how can you begin to say that she was just a child bearer, how is that blessed among any other mother? NONONONONO, she holds a special place in the heart of Jesus, and had to watch her Son die to save an ungrateful sinning world. just as the saints alive in heaven, so she is alive to, and can pray for us to her Son for our redemption and salvation. she is not the mediator, but she intercedes on our behalf to the mediator, who was sacrificed for our sins. 5. I disagree with you saying that protestants idolize scripture. Studying scripture allows for better understanding of God and the early church. God knows my heart and why I like to read scripture. the problem isnt that you so much idolize scripture. its that you idolize parts of the scripture. you protestants spend all day parsing the words of paul the apostle, and ignore the words of james which clearly show your personal interpretation to be entirely false. it is this abuse of scripture which is your bane. you know, one time at my moms church i asked a pastor about the thing of faith without works is dead in james and he told me that james was not inspired like paul was. THE AUDACITY THAT PROTESTANTS CAN CLAIM NOW WHICH PARTS OF THE BIBLE ARE AND ARENT INSPIRED!!!!! 6. I disagree with bowing to statues. One of the commandments was no graven images of heaven above or earth beneath. ahem... no worship of graven images. two points... first, see my answer to number two. bowing is not necessarily worship. second, when we bow to a statue of Christ it serves as a reminder of the sacrifice of the lamb. we do not worship or respect the statue, we worship and respect God, whom the statue reminds us of. a crucifix reminds us of the fact that when we sin we go back and help to nail our Lord to the cross, but that doesnt mean we worship crucifixes. they are reminders, not graven images of worship. 7. I disagree with calling priests father. see answer to number one. again you mistake the context of the word ABBA. 8. I disagree with purgatory, it isn't mentioned in the new testament. it is mention in the old testament, although not in your version of the Bible, which was raped of core books by the founders of protestantism. and it is irrelevant that it isnt mentioned in the new testament. Jesus didnt come to change the law, he came to fulfill it. he did NOT end purgatory. 9. Finally, Scripture is like a set of instructions, it is not a god, but it is the words of God in written form. Nothing the church practices should be external to scripture. eh, no. you should say it is SOME of teh word of God in written form. the Bible is composed of a list of scriptures that were selected from HUNDREDS of inspired scriptures. as such to save space, that which was already in practice throughout the world was left unrecorded, expecting that it would be handed down in TRADITION... the second form of the word of God. but your tradition is only a hundred years old, made up by man, whereas ours is two thousand years old, given us by the foundation of truth, Jesus.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

You disposed easily of each of Andrew's objections, Paul. I feel for him, because it's hard for a well-meaning Baptist who is very sure of himeslf to get knocked out without landing one solid punch. That's life and that's our faith.

You leave nothing for the impatient guys like myself to say, until Andrew comes back for more. He will.

I wanted to assure everybody, when I state the case against sola scriptura, and bluntly assert a bibliolatry of many non-Catholics,

I truly sympathise with their ingrained ignorance of the faith. To make of the Bible all there is, and all the authority; is tantamount to worship. No other authority in the world is trustworthy to these people; and it doesn't seem to matter to Andrew, for one; that private interpretation can be truly destructive. He began the thread saying he is led by the Holy Spirit in Bible study. If this were so, he wouldn't fail to see the truth; and he does that frequently. Nevertheless, he loves the Bible to the extreme that his flawed interpretations are given the seal of the Holy Spirit's approval. By whom??? By Andrew, beacuse he has no Church to discern anything authoritatively. It isn't whether he sees the truth, it's all whether the Bible is God or not.

Meanwhile, he arbitrarily assigns to Christ's Church a ''spiritual only'' role in the world. It's supposed to be ''invisible'', with no teaching involved at all! How he found that out, who knows? It isn't in the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 02, 2003.


Ok Paul, you can still respect the saints without set up an image can't you? Do you worship the invisible God with an image? Do you know for sure without a shadow of a doubt that these images are exactly what the apostles look like? Chances are that these statues of Jesus that we see today are probably not what Jesus actually looked like. Jesus is looking down from Heaven and watching you giving "respect" to an image that probably doesnt look like him. Do you know God is a jealous God? I've think I've seen about 10 different pictures of Jesus all a bit different than the other. Did you know some say that Jesus's skin color was probably a bit darker than what most pictures of Jesus today look like, if we put it into context of those days in the middle east. And no I do not have a picture of my girlfriend that I kiss everyday. Even if I did, it would be different. "Husbands love your wives". Bible says to love, just love, love you mom dad, friends, neighbors, and even enemies. God is the God of the living. Why don't you give respect to other saints as well, such as the first century saints whom were martyred by Rome. How about setting up images of every single pope that ever existed, and do the same with them. Where are their statues? And how about setting up statues of all the prophets of the old testament as well. I 'd rather having living people intercede for me, the apostles are already with Jesus. And yes Paul I do ask people to pray for me I am in a fellowship group on campus actually. They are a wonderful group of people. I believe in the power of prayer. I am not ignorant of the Bible either although I am still a baby in Christ Jesus. Protestants never got rid of the sacraments by the way, despite you trying to imply that it did. As for the church binding it must bind according to God's will of course because he is ultimately in control, otherwise why don't you bind hell completely so no one can go there or bind everything you can think of to bind? Hey technically scripture never said that the church couldnt do that. Would you use this same binding quote to justify the crusades? As for you mentioning the Jews, you must remember that they don't consider Christ to be the messiah, but in actuality Christ has thrown open the gates of mercy already. Their folks are still in I think it's what they call Sheol, the waiting place. Why was it like this, because even with animal sacrifices, it wasn't sufficient enough. In the book of Hebrews, it reads that THERE IS NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS. Chp 9 verse 14 "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. "For if we wilfully sin after that we have recieved the knowledge of the truth, there remainet no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.." I would like to reitterate the verse in the book of Acts, where Peter said he himself is a man. I ultimately believe for the next 2000 years of Christianity in this world after Christs ressurection that holy scriptures would be the tool to reprove and correct, just like you said in timothy. How do know history? Through the history books we read. Now if their was VCR's back in Jesus's day then T.V. would be an important tool. How would we know anything from the past, if it isn't written? If not then why do we even need scriptures? Why dont we rely by word of mouth completely? Have you ever played the game where everyone gets into a huge circle and a secret is passed from one person to the next, and by the time it comes back around to the original person, it is usually somehow distorted. Finally I'd like to say "is it written.."? You make it seem like absolutely no common person will be able to understand the Bible. Not all parts of the Bible require theological training to understand. The Holy Ghost can reveal scriptures to anyone desiring to know Him. He is emmanuel God with us not far from us. I agree the church is the pillars of the truth, but "what saith the scriptures?" As for calling people holy, it doesnt sound right if I went to you directly and called my christian friend o holy friend. They people in the past holy, but to give a person the title of holy? Paul why can't I call you holy father, or can I? Because I mean you are a father and I'm sure your holy. We are hypocrites is more like it. Yes we are to BE holy, definitely. How about if I give myself the name Holy Andrew. Where in scripture does it tell of any person referring to another individual as Holy all the time? Oh Holy Moses. I tell my friends to start calling me Holy Andrew. And to call directly a priest father? Giving him the title father. To me it seems the word father were used as past tense, to refer to the past elders of the church or Jews or whatever. As for bowing to kings and presidents as opposed to another christian is quite different. It is biblically correct to bow before kings they are in authority of the nation. We are to bow before God. But as for another brethren in Christ, I don't think so. By the way, if a church ever goes out of its way, and it does have the ability to, then God may spue it out of his mouth. 7 churches of Asia, church of Laodicea "lukewarm" church. This suggest that any church has full capacity to go for the better or worst. If this weren't true, then God would have never allowed a church to go lukewarm.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 02, 2003.

Andrew,
Paul certainly will know the answers to your pseudo-biblical objections. I single out these:

''Have you ever played the game where everyone gets into a huge circle and a secret is passed from one person to the next, and by the time it comes back around to the original person, it is usually somehow distorted?'' Yes, very clever. The protestant rejection of a living Tradition. Except, in this case, that tradition is under the protection of --The Holy Spirit. The Church cannot loseany truth, because he is the Spirit of Truth; who abides in her as Advocate.

And, while we are thinking of Him; you said: ''''The Holy Ghost can reveal scriptures to anyone desiring to know Him. He is emmanuel God with us.''

If that were true, your protestant Bible Christian communities would have a united church. The Holy Spirit would simply illuminate the lot of you. But He doesn't. He won't, and He never told anyone He would.

In fact, the Catholic Church is where the Holy Spirit abides. Not in you, as an individual. If He abided in Andrew, Andrew would be a prophet, like John the Baptist. Like Isaiah, and Moses. They had the Holy Spirit. Not Baptists. Not me, either; as a rule. I also must trust only the Church.

The Church in her Pope & the bishops, the holy Magisterium, is where the Holy Spirit gives us all truth. The Bible offers no guarantee for you or anybody, that you'll know the correct interpretation just by praying, or inner faith.

You ought to look in the Bible; and locate the chapter- verse by which you feel entitled to interpret anything in it. But you won't. It isn't there, Andrew.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 02, 2003.


off italic,

P.S.
''I disagree with bowing to statues. One of the commandments was no graven images of heaven above or earth beneath.''

No, you misunderstood the commandment. God commanded the Israelites not to carve images to worship as gods. The Israelites even broke this commandment, adoring a golden calf! The illustration is perfectly clear.

God was pleased with carvings in His temple. Oxen and trees, etc., and two cherubim arched across His mercy seat, on the Ark of the covenant. So, God knows the difference, Andrew. Even if it goes over your head.

You live in a condition of darkened spirit. That's why you misconstrue all the scriptures. Pray for God's grace. He will illumine you, if you pray humbly for true wisdom. He may even bring you back someday, to the Church of your blessed ancestors. You knew your ancestors were all Catholics, didn't you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 02, 2003.


You also act like protestant are in such chaotic disarray and are vastly opposed to each other. This is simply not true. Thanks Eugene. I will not say I'll never become catholic. I'm not stubborn nor intolerant. But setting up images of men? though?

-- ANdrew (amao@uci.edu), June 02, 2003.

Dear Andrew,

Ok Paul, you can still respect the saints without set up an image can't you?

A: Certainly I can. I can also respect my wife without carrying her picture. Your point?

Do you worship the invisible God with an image?

A: Yes, there are some classical works of art depicting the Most Holy Trinity, which are truly inspiring, and can serve as inspiration for meditation. Naturally, the depictions involve some degree of imagination, but so what as long as theys erve their holy purpose. Of course we also have depictions of the visible God - God in the flesh, Jesus; and also the Holy Spirit Who appeared as a dove and as tongues of fire.

Do you know for sure without a shadow of a doubt that these images are exactly what the apostles look like? Chances are that these statues of Jesus that we see today are probably not what Jesus actually looked like.

A: No, I don't. Does it matter? Have you ever used a history book? Didn't those depictions of Cleopatra and Alexander the Great make the text much more meaningful and interesting, even though we have no idea what these people actually looked like? Aren't you glad that Bible study books include pictures of Moses and Abraham and Jesus? Did you ever watch the film The Ten Commandments? Powerful, wasn't it? Do you really think Moses looked like Charton Heston? Did it matter? The message was powerfully portrayed. The effect of art is what matters, not the literal accuracy of the depiction, whether it is religious art or secular.

"Jesus is looking down from Heaven and watching you giving "respect" to an image that probably doesnt look like him".

A: We give a certain limited respect to images, because of the people they represent. If my wife's picture got soiled, I wouldn't just toss it in the garbage. We give far greater respect to people however, including people who are represented by images. Jesus desires our respect and our worship, no matter what kind of images we use to help us relate to Him in a more personal way.

"Do you know God is a jealous God?"

A: Do you know this verse relates to idolatry, not to the precise accuracy of paintings??

"God is the God of the living".

A: Yes, He is the god of the living - including the saints, whom Jesus said would never die, and who are at this very moment presenting our prayers to God, just as the Bible describes. (Rev 5:8)

"Why don't you give respect to other saints as well, such as the first century saints whom were martyred by Rome".

A: We do give honor to all saints, including first century Catholics who were martyred by pagan Rome.

"How about setting up images of every single pope that ever existed, and do the same with them".

A: Not every Pope has been declared a saint, though undoubtedly most of them are. There are a few whose sainthood is sadly doubtful however. Just up the street from my home is a statue of Pope Saint Pius V, standing in front of the church which bears his name.

"I 'd rather having living people intercede for me, the apostles are already with Jesus".

A: So, being with Jesus = death?? Not according to the Bible! You said it yourself - He is the God of the living, not the dead. Reread this passage in context. Jesus was telling the people that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are ALIVE. Moses and Elijah certainly seemed alive and healthy when they appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration (Matt 17). Jesus said those who believe in Him will never die. "Will never die" means "is alive". Indeed, they are more alive then they have ever been, and in a far better position to intercede for us!

"And yes Paul I do ask people to pray for me I am in a fellowship group on campus actually".

A: Ahhh, so you DO believe in intercession! But you think that the prayers of earthly sinners on our behalf are more powerful then the prayers of heavenly saints! Can't imagine why??

"Protestants never got rid of the sacraments by the way, despite you trying to imply that it did".

A: Sorry, but the Christian Church received seven of them from Jesus. Protestant sects typically have 1 or 2 (Marriage and "Communion"). Some claim no sacraments at all. They also have baptism, but don't consider it a sacrament. And even what they call "sacraments" have lost almost all of their original meaning, and are now merely symbolic acts.

"As for the church binding it must bind according to God's will of course because he is ultimately in control"

A: Yes, of course - but you miss the point. Jesus didn't simply give His Church the power of binding, with the stipulation that it only bind things that are according to His will. Rather, He GUARANTEED that the Holy Spirit would prevent the Church from binding anything that is NOT in accord with His will. Therefore, binding of doctrine by the Church and accord with His divine will are one and the same thing! This is why His Church has 2,000 years of constant, pure teaching, while other churches divide and subdivide almost weekly over differences of opinion regarding scripture.

"Would you use this same binding quote to justify the crusades"?

A: Of course not. The Crusades were a war, not a declaration of binding doctrine. Though that war did save Europe from being overrun by the Mohammedans, and ultimately saved the USA from being an Islamic nation, it was not a matter of doctrine, and therefore had nothing to do with binding teaching.

"I ultimately believe for the next 2000 years of Christianity in this world after Christs ressurection that holy scriptures would be the tool to reprove and correct, just like you said in timothy".

A: You are inching closer to the truth here - the scriptures are indeed a TOOL - a tool to be used within the context of the Church, and as the Bible says, they are USEFUL for reproving and correcting - because they contain the divinely inspired teaching of the Church! But that is still miles away from being the sole source of Christian truth! I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT PASSAGE. If you can't provide it, then please don't keep asking for scriptures to back up everything that is taught by the Church - because ONE passage - Matt 16:19 - covers ALL the Church's teaching in ALL times and places.

"How do know history? Through the history books we read. Now if their was VCR's back in Jesus's day then T.V. would be an important tool. How would we know anything from the past, if it isn't written? If not then why do we even need scriptures? Why dont we rely by word of mouth completely"?

A: Let's try to avoid setting up straw men here. No-one has even suggested rejecting the written Word in favor of Apostolic Tradition. That's just the point - BOTH are of equal importance, if the fullness of truth is to be known, as the written Word clearly states (2 Thes 2:15).

"Have you ever played the game where everyone gets into a huge circle and a secret is passed from one person to the next, and by the time it comes back around to the original person, it is usually somehow distorted".

A: Yes I have. But I have never played that game with a group of people to whom God had promised "when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13). I do worship in a Church to which God made that promise - the ONLY Church to which He made that promise. Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is powerless to keep God's message pure and true, even after Jesus promised He would? If Jesus had been playing that game, and promised the players ""he who hears you hears Me" (Luke 10:16) before starting the message down the line, you can bet the message would emerge pure, complete, and unchanged.

"You make it seem like absolutely no common person will be able to understand the Bible. Not all parts of the Bible require theological training to understand."

A: Of course not. But a great many parts DO need such training, and much MORE. Even those with doctorate degrees in biblical studies cannot interpret scripture accurately, as demonstrated by the fact that each of the major denominations has its own Doctors of Divinity, yet their doctrines all conflict. No surprise, since the "theological training" provided by each denomination includes the theological errors which define that denomination! What is wrong with this picture? Obviously something more than theological training is required.

"The Holy Ghost can reveal scriptures to anyone desiring to know Him."

A: Yes. And He does! That is why God gave us a Church with a guarantee that the Holy Spirit will guide it to ALL TRUTH. ANYONE desiring to know the truth can find it there. And obviously, anyone who walks away from the source of truth God has provided will encounter untruth. This is inevitable, and denominationalism is the proof.

"I agree the church is the pillars of the truth"

A: Well good! And you must therefore grasp the meaning of the analogy. Try to hold a building together after removing its foundation, and you end up with rubble. Try to hold the truth together without the Church, and you end up with doctrinal chaos.

"Paul why can't I call you holy father, or can I? Because I mean you are a father and I'm sure your holy."

A: Yes, I am a father, and some people call me that - those to whom I relate in that way. Also, I do have some degree of holiness, as do you, but such titles are generally reserved for those who are outstanding examples of virtue and personal holiness. I am not.

"here in scripture does it tell of any person referring to another individual as Holy all the time?"

A: As I already pointed out, the scriptures are full of examples of people referred to as "holy" - people far more suited to that description than I am. I do know some people though who I consider to be outstanding examples of Christian holiness. We should not judge others however.

"It is biblically correct to bow before kings they are in authority of the nation."

A: Yes! And Blessed Simon Peter and his successors are in authority over the Church of God - the sole holders of the keys!

"This suggest that any church has full capacity to go for the better or worst. If this weren't true, then God would have never allowed a church to go lukewarm."

A: Indeed, churches go bad all the time. Some denominations don't even last a year. They come and go every month of the year. After all, 30,000 of them appearing in 450 years comes to almost 6 per month, and that's only the ones that still exist, not the many hundreds of others that have come and gone. Also, most of the existing ones have appeared in the past 150 years. And through the storm of fragmentation, conflict and contradiction, one Church holds firm. One Church is built on ROCK (see the symbolism?). One Church continues to hold and profess the fullness of truth provided by the Holy Spirit. One Church is all that Jesus Christ ever intended. One Holy Catholic Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 02, 2003.


When churches go bad, they reform. If you say the holy spirit is only in the cahtolic church, how can you explain the miracles and healings, and the casting out of demons in protestant churches?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 02, 2003.

We are holders of the keys as well. The keys are symbolic of the power he was going to give his church. I sure you would agree upon that. He gave it to the church. Where 3 or more are gathered, there I am in the midst, Jesus said as well as what soever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. The church is the body of believers. When one person has or thinks he has all the power, you get something like the Crusades.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 02, 2003.

And the rock is Christ.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 02, 2003.

Andrew,
I'm sorry-- all the three last statements you made are false.

Your question: ''When churches go bad, they reform. If you say the Holy Spirit is only in the Catholic Church, how can you explain the miracles and healings, and the casting out of demons in protestant churches?''

Very simply: Christ did NOT found ''churches''. He only founded the Catholic Church. Reform is done within the church, not by rejecting the church. Christ didn't found any protestant church. The so-called events you maintain are not miracles, or healing, or demon cast-outs. You are deceived by self-ordained and opportunistic ''ministers''. They lie to you.

Jimmy Swaggart is only one of them. He rode around in a Jaguar picking up girls (a euphemism) with the money he makes bilking Baptists.

You can't make these things up, Andrew!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.


Dear Eugene, Your pretty funny. The Holy Spirit is powerful in some of these congregations, demons are casted out, people are healed, and saved. These charasmatics and some televangelists I agree turn out to be dopes or heretics, but please don't use them against Christians. You observe this within protestantism, but you don't observe the preist scandals within your own and please don't just say, "well, they're sinners". We are called to be a holy preisthood. I see you have no grasp on true Protestantism, they are not all there for a show. I'm just not buying into everything you are saying, I believe you and Paul are heavily biased towards catholicism as you should be and I question some of your historical statements. You will do and say anything to defend your positions. Deep down in your inner heart, you feel something just is not right with the way your going about it. And i do not deny the fact that you guys probably have more of a theological background than I do as I am only a freshman in college, but will definitely grow in my knowledge Christianity. What you guys tell me is quite different than what I actually observe when it comes to catholicism and that you cannot lie. Please don't try and shake up my Faith. The first time i decided to come in here, I thought this would be a protestant forum, given the name of it. And it was a lie, to try and convert me? Of course I am going to defend my faith.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 03, 2003.

dang, big Paul got to it first, i'll try to address this all again though. andrew, it seems you are scrapping a bit.
Do you know for sure without a shadow of a doubt that these images are exactly what the apostles look like? Chances are that these statues of Jesus that we see today are probably not what Jesus actually looked like. actually, the church in my home town just purchased a painting that is considered to be a miracle and is under such consideration by the church. why? because the face of jesus in the painting matches EXACTLY with the imprint left on the shroud of turin (the cloth left over Jesus' body in the tomb). i just got to see to shroud of turin three weeks ago in trier, and although i could get close enough to see the imprint, the picture overlay i've seen is quite frightening. oh, i forgot to mention, the artist never saw the shroud of turin, the image came to him in his sleep and he painted it. so it stands to reason we have a good idea, except for skin tone of what Jesus looked like. Jesus is looking down from Heaven and watching you giving "respect" to an image that probably doesnt look like him. do you REALLY believe Jesus, the Lord who died on a cross for the sins of humanity is THAT petty? Did you know some say that Jesus's skin color was probably a bit darker than what most pictures of Jesus today look like, if we put it into context of those days in the middle east. that could be, but if you watch the news, middle easterners are not a whole lot darker than we are. in fact, most of them look like americans with a good tan. the idea of them looking incredibly different from us just is not true. Why don't you give respect to other saints as well, such as the first century saints whom were martyred by Rome. we respect all saints, but the desire for an intercession is saint specific. im not going to ask the patron st of singers to intercede for me on behalf of my studies in physics. just as someone who wants to find a lost key isnt going to pray to st jude(lost causes). they are more likely to hit up the st of lost articles. each different st had something they championed, something they stood for, its like if you had a friend who quit smoking and you asked them to help you quite smoking too. they have EXPERTISE. I 'd rather having living people intercede for me, the apostles are already with Jesus. And yes Paul I do ask people to pray for me I am in a fellowship group on campus actually. you are still locked into this protestant idea that once you die you are severed from life. isnt eternal life the promise of God? when you can show me where in the Bible it says that once you die you lose all faculty of prayer, then i'll take your word. you cant though, its not there. Protestants never got rid of the sacraments by the way, despite you trying to imply that it did. big paul already covered this one, but i have to say, the only sacraments at the protestant church i was forced to attend were baptism and marraige. communion once a month, but thats not a sacrament, they called it just a 'reminder' (funny, reminders as statues are bad, but denying the command of Christ and calling the communion nothing but a reminder is good?) As for the church binding it must bind according to God's will of course because he is ultimately in control, otherwise why don't you bind hell completely so no one can go there or bind everything you can think of to bind? you dont make sense, sorry. i think what youre getting at though, is why doesnt the church make everything it can okay so that everyone gets into heaven? because it is sealed with the holy spirit. that would violate Gods command. oh yes, it has happened in the past because of deviants from Gods will, but it has righted itself, and will continue to do so. I would like to reitterate the verse in the book of Acts, where Peter said he himself is a man. and i would like to reiterate the fact that no pope thinks himself to be anything other than a man. a shepard maybe, but still a man. i've already covered how tradition is guarded by the Holy Spirit, so im moving on. Finally I'd like to say "is it written.."? You make it seem like absolutely no common person will be able to understand the Bible. Not all parts of the Bible require theological training to understand. The Holy Ghost can reveal scriptures to anyone desiring to know Him. no, not all parts require theological training. some do. in fact, some require the seal of the Holy Spirit to interpret them properly... a seal which lies with the pope, given such authority by God. as eugene and big paul have pointed out, there are over thirty thousand protestant denominations and each one claims they have the truth. there is only one truth, and it is only being given to one church, the original church. I agree the church is the pillars of the truth, you misquote. the term is that the church is the PILLAR of truth, not pillars. there is one pillar of one truth built on the foundation that is Christ, with the cornerstone which is Peter (from petros, meaning rock) but "what saith the scriptures?" As for calling people holy, it doesnt sound right if I went to you directly and called my christian friend o holy friend. why not? thats what elizabeth said to Mary. that sayeth the scriptures for sure. They people in the past holy, but to give a person the title of holy? Paul why can't I call you holy father, or can I? Because I mean you are a father and I'm sure your holy. you cant call me father because im not a father nor am i holy at all. i am a sinner unworthy of the sacrifice our Lord made for us, and yet Jesus still calls me home. the pope, although still a man, and still a sinner, is sealed by the Holy Spirit, who guards his decisions against error. for this reason he alone is the holy father (note, earthly father, NOT abba) And to call directly a priest father? Giving him the title father. To me it seems the word father were used as past tense, to refer to the past elders of the church or Jews or whatever. well, priests are the elders of the church so to speak. As for bowing to kings and presidents as opposed to another christian is quite different. It is biblically correct to bow before kings they are in authority of the nation. We are to bow before God. But as for another brethren in Christ WHY? we are to bow before kings before we pay our respects to the spiritual leader of the world? i wouldnt bow to any king or president today, but i would bow to the pope. he ALONE has earned enough of my respect to warrent a bow, and furthermore i would consider his seal of the Holy Spirit alone to be worth that much respect. i bow before the work God does through him... not to any mere man. addressing your next posts in my next post

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 03, 2003.

ah, my formatting is still not working for some reason, i'll have to do it the hard way... --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- You also act like protestant are in such chaotic disarray and are vastly opposed to each other. This is simply not true. Thanks Eugene. i would consider thirty thousand different protestant denominations all claiming their own version of the truth to be chaotic disarray... or maybe just a tea party, i dont know. I will not say I'll never become catholic. I'm not stubborn nor intolerant. But setting up images of men? though? i dont know why you are so opposed to respecting people who do the work of God. im glad to hear youre willing to listen. that makes you a hundred and ten percent better than some of the other protestants who march through here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- When churches go bad, they reform. If you say the holy spirit is only in the cahtolic church, how can you explain the miracles and healings, and the casting out of demons in protestant churches? there are no proven miracles outside of the catholic faith. inside of the church there are many(note, scientifically proven with incredible documentation)
healings occur because of ones faith, not because of the minister. ask and you shall recieve. yes, prayer can bring about healing, even in non catholics. that doesnt make ALL of their doctrine right.
there has never been a recorded case of a succesful excorcism taking place without being led by a catholic priest who was an excorcist. not one. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- We are holders of the keys as well. The keys are symbolic of the power he was going to give his church. I sure you would agree upon that. He gave it to the church. no, he gave the keys to PETER (petros, the rock) which in turn he gave to the apostles. from apostolic succession, the priests and the priests alone hold the keys to the kingdom. When one person has or thinks he has all the power, you get something like the Crusades. what you should say is when one person ignores the influence of the Holy Spirit you end up with the crusades. not ALL of the crusades were bad however. as has been said already, some of the crusades were organized to beat off attacks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- And the rock is Christ. no, Jesus said to peter, quite clearly in mathew (16?) ' you are my ROCK upon which i build my church' thats even not been taken out of your version of the Bible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- but you don't observe the preist scandals within your own and please don't just say, "well, they're sinners". We are called to be a holy preisthood. exactly, they are more than just sinners, they are betrayers of the confidence placed in them. and we are very aware of the faults of some of the priests. hows this though... per capita (percent) the priesthood has lower levels of molesting ministers than ANY other church in the world. why the media attention? because catholics make up 1.2 billion people, whereas the total number of protestants doesnt even add up to a billion. Deep down in your inner heart, you feel something just is not right with the way your going about it. no, thats just a little heart burn. i know that the catholic church is the right path, because i've been in both worlds. as you grow and spiritually mature, if you are as open as you say you are, you will come home too. And i do not deny the fact that you guys probably have more of a theological background than I do as I am only a freshman in college, but will definitely grow in my knowledge Christianity. ahem... im only a sophomore in college (well, going to be a junior next year). and theology is not my major. i hope you will continue to grow in your christian knowledge. What you guys tell me is quite different than what I actually observe when it comes to catholicism and that you cannot lie. we're not lying about our faith. if you want you can read it in the catholic catechism, which details all of what we've told you. what is observed from the outside is often what is fed to people by ministers who feel the need to beat up on the catholic church. it bears no meaning to what really occurs in the catholic church. Please don't try and shake up my Faith. never our intention andrew. we are trying to help you see more so that your faith can grow. whether or not you convert to catholicism, if you leave this forum with more understanding and perspective i will be satisfied. The first time i decided to come in here, I thought this would be a protestant forum, given the name of it. And it was a lie, to try and convert me? Of course I am going to defend my faith. it was not a lie. you didnt do your research properly. this is what is called a THREAD. its a line of discussion in a website. its not really a site itself. go to the link at the top, which says catholic, and you'll see all of the threads in the site. then click new answers and you'll see this thread near the top of the list. its not a conversion tactic, its an honest misunderstanding. you have every right to defend your faith, as i have a right to defend mine... and try to convert you as well. best wishes in the Lord,

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 03, 2003.

Dear Andrew:
No matter how aggressive my words may be, or the charges I bring against sectarian faiths, sola scriptura, Catholic-bashing, etc., If God permits, my only wish is to help you. You truly could use a mentor. (And, BTW, I'm glad & relieved you're an adult and not a teenager.)

You will benefit much reading very closely the previous post by Li'l paul. He covered many of the objections you posted just recently. I myself wish to remark on your words here:

''The Holy Spirit is powerful in some of these (Baptist? Protestant evangelicals??) congregations, demons are casted out, people are healed, and saved. These charismatics and some televangelists I agree, turn out to be dopes or heretics, but please don't use them against Christians.''

Andrew, they're mostly all in the same boat. They all think they have the Spirit. They say they're all Christians. Even the bad ones. Why would Jimmy Carter, a life-long Baptist, finally quit his church? How could Oral Roberts, (He saw a vision of Jesus 900-foot high!) or Jim & Tammy Bakker be called carriers of the true Gospel? How would Oral Roberts ''heal'' someone? With baloney. Or have the nerve to demand a gazillion dollar donation from contributors, because Jesus told him otherwise he would have to die???

All these men claim to read the Bible with the light of the Holy Spirit! Just as you do, in sola scriptura, rejecting the Church of the holy apostles. Not one of them concedes any spititual authority to the Catholic Church;

. . . Yet every one of these frauds is a descendent of Catholics back in the 13th - 14th century. They deny their own Catholic ancestors, (SAINTS, MARTYRS!) and they make money doing it!

Then you give them credit for miracles??? Come on! Just because you're a young Christian, it doesn't mean you'll always be ignorant of this world. This world corrupts! And only the Catholic Church has withstood the temptations of the world, Andrew.

She has been caught in many webs, infiltrated by frauds, by heretical sects, by grave sinners, by fanatics; even by unfaithful priests. But she stands the test of time. No power of Satan can finish her off. She preserves the True Faith!

Jesus Christ warned His Church in the beginning. He told her false prophets would come, and many would follow after them. He said by their fruits we would know them. And also scandals. He prophesied them; and still He kept the promise: ''I am with you all days; even to the end of the world.'' (Matt, 28:20) You are hearing some of the authorized Holy Gospel here for the first time, Andrew.

The apostles haven't brought the Church this far (2,000+ years) just to fail Jesus. He is the Church's Bridegroom, and she has nothing to fear from the world.

No quibbling over saints, statues, miracles, or scriptures can block you from her, if you have faith in Christ her founder. You are either faithful to the Gospel, or you fall by the wayside; like that seed which fell on stony ground, (Matt 13, :5).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.


off i

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.

Dear Eugene and Paul, Well thanks for enlightening me your intentions are good. However, I already knew about Oral Roberts ministry as well as a load of others, like jesse duplantis, paul and Jan, TBN, they want money. I know about Mormons, SDA's, jehovah witness, the jesus freaks, promise keepers as well, so. Wolves in sheep clothes clothing indeed I've been warned before. You must understand you cannot deem my whole Protestant faith by comparing it to those charasmatics who have departed from the Faith. Ignorance of the scriptures is not the way my friends. Please don't consider me a heretic. I truly love Jesus and so do you. I understand your viewpoints and I hope you understand mine. I'd also like to say something, that's sorta food for thought, if God would allow wolves to come into the catholic church as well, in the form of preists who molest. Have you ever thought that the papacy could be just as vulnerable? Preists obviously go through a training process, I'm sure you don't just stick some random joe bob behind the pulpit and carefully evaluate them through the preisthood, and satan can still get his way with the preists? If Satan were ever, God forbid, be able to come in the form of the Pope, and please I'm not trying to be disrespectful, we might have ourselves the antichrist. I have seen numerous times on T.V. now, the pope giving numerous speeches to religious heads of all faiths, dali lama, yasir arafat, leaders, even Bush, you name it. I've even seen pictures of the pope kissing the koran as well as recieving marks from hindu preists. He is definitely building up the charisma towards the whole world. Although his intentions may be good, look at the big picture. Where in the world does say in scripture that the papacy can never be influenced by satan as well? Where does it garantee that? If satan were ever to do that then we are in trouble aren't we? Is satan dumb, why wouldn't he go for the head? If he were an intelligent being he would. This I doubt you can deny either. I still hold this to be true a Protestant =a protesting catholic and we love Jesus. I currently go to a wonderful nondenomminational church here in college and it is awesome. Well gotta study for finals, see you guys later. God Bless.

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 03, 2003.

Andrew,

I see no reason to respond to your "where in Scripture" questions, since you apparently have conceded that asking such questions is an unbiblical manmade tradition. Or at least you have not yet offered a shred of biblical evidence to support such an approach. I have offered you several passages that state just the opposite - that the Church is where Jesus told us to look for truth, and that the Bible apart from the Church is NOT a reliable source of truth.. Therefore, let's drop the "scriptural evidence" tradition until such time as you can demonstrate that it is biblical. Until then, ALL my beliefs are fully supported by ONE passage of scripture - Matt 16:19.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 03, 2003.


Dear Andrew:
The question, ''sorta food for thought, if God would allow wolves to come into the Catholic Church as well, in the form of priests who molest . . the papacy could be just as vulnerable?

It's natural to ask, and here's the Church's answer.

It has happened in past ages, that immoral Popes occupied the chair of Saint Peter. No one denies this, though it's painful to faithful Catholics. But although a man may be corrupt, that isn't so with the Holy Spirit. He shelters his Church from any fallout which a bad Pope might bring about. It's the promise of Jesus to His everlasting Church.

Jesus made it clear. He told the Church that scandals would indeed come. Woe, He said to those by whom scandal comes.

But the Holy Spirit even so protects His Church by divine power from ever allowing a bad priest or prelate to corrupt the faith. Our Holy Church is safe from all evil influences in doctrine, in faith, or in teaching of moral conduct. Not only that; but with time, the same Holy Spirit always raises up new and holier men to restore the Church's fervor and powers. It's actually happened in the past. Nothing will ever destroy the Catholic Church. Because Jesus Christ said clearly ''The gates of hell shall not prevail'' over her. And also promised, ''I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.''

There is no power in all Creation more sure and eternal than the word of Jesus Christ. He told us, ''Heaven and earth shall pass away, my words shall not pass away.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.


andrew,

i miss your presence in this thread, are you still around...? please understand that i enjoy debating with you, its spiritually strengthening for me as well. i would recommend that you attend a catholic mass several times, just to get a feel for what we really do in our service. in that way you can gain an understanding of us and our faith that would be helpful in your perspective. only by understanding each other can we make true progress.

best wishes paul (with a little 'p', not to be confused with big Paul)

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2003.


And Christ is the rock of our salvation, the Church, and my life. For God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever belieth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. I hope someday God will tender your hearts toward protestants and realize that the reformation was a beautiful thing. An act of God so that the Truth could be more and more known. After 450 glorious years of protestantism, God has not destroyed it. It has grown as a matter of fact and continues to do so. Give it another 1000 years, it will still be here. Another 5000 years and it will still be here. My My look at all them heretics. Thanks to the reformers, the Bible was translated to the language common to the people. Your excuse is the Bible is uninterpretable by anyone,well I am here to say that most of the content in the Bible can be understood through diligent study. Maybe the Church before reformation should have built more schools to improve the education of those in europe whom were 95% uneducated, so that they could read the Bible. The Holy scriptures divinely inspired and everything contained within is the truth, and it reproofs and corrects! The Bible is awesome. And Paul, guess what, the Holy Spirit can be received! And you never know, hey I could be a prophet. . . Halleluyah to the Lamb of God! My Lord and only Savior, Whose grace is sufficient, Whose blood cleanses me from all unrighteousness Jesus Christ...

----Andrew

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 09, 2003.


Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences Martin Luther, October 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter. In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost- despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon- preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again: "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Does this sound like a heretic to you?

-- Andrew (amao@uci.edu), June 09, 2003.


Dear Andrew,

Yes, I'm afraid it does. The 95 theses are fairly evenly divided between reasonable and orthodox statements on the one hand, and misguided, inaccurate statements on the other. Some of the inaccuracies profess mere confusion, the inevitable result of placing one's trust in one's own interpretations rather than objective truth. But several such statements constitute blatant rejections of traditional Christian teaching which clearly constitute heresy. Statements most obviously including heretical elements include #5, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, 34, 43, 52, 76, 77, and 83. #16 is particularly ludicrous, showing a total disregard for Apostolic teaching, and expressing the exact opposite of the divinely revealed doctrine of the universal Church of Christ. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of this basic Christian doctrine recognizes at once that the truths of Purgatory, Heaven, and Hell can represent only two spiritual states - the absolute despair of those in Hell, and the glorious victory and absolute assurance of salvation for those in Heaven and Purgatory.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 09, 2003.


Dear Andrew:
Let me caution you as a friend. Posting whole rafts of proselytizing matter here is a violation of forum rules.

Though I've never sided with the many others here who demanded the rules be enforced by deletions of erroneous or false doctrines of protestantism, I will not object if your bold miscarriages get axed today.

You've become a pampered child right before our eyes, and seem to think we enjoy this preening of yours.

In charity I'll add, we wish to help you to true understanding of the Catholic faith. For this to happen, we'd prefer you remain here. But NOT for you to reign supreme as the ''exponent'' of God's Will. It is comical sometimes, how your grasp exeeds your puny reach. A prophet!!! Take a pill, Little Guy.

I hope you had fun posting the carpet of trash you just posted. My personal response to it is pity for you. I say that with real charity. It's sad to see such invincible ignorance in one of God's creatures; like a fly caught in the web of Satan's spiders.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2003.


I have a question relating to all of this. Should we look to the Bible to interpret what or who the rock is?

1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has already been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ". Is Peter to be the foundation of the church (the rock the church is built on) or is Jesus the foundation?

Peter himself will say in 1 Peter 2:6 "Peter speaks about the cornerstone, which is Christ.

Is the foundation of the church Peter or Jesus? It would seem to me it would have to be Jesus...where am I going wrong?

-- craig grammer (cgrammer@fccspfld.org), November 11, 2003.


Well, first and most basically, you went wrong by trying to interpret the scriptures for yourself. But to be more specific, you went wrong in ignoring Matthew 16:18, where Jesus Himself, who is the symbolic Rock and Foundation of the Faith, uses the exact same symbolism in appointing the Apostle Simon to be His personal Vicar, the Rock and Foundation of His Church. He changes Simon's very name to "Rock" (Peter), precisely so that in the same sentence he can designate Simon, now Simon Peter, as the one upon whom He will build His Church. That which is built upon is a foundation, is it not? Jesus, the Rock, then empowers Simon the Rock, giving to him the keys to the kingdom, and the broad power ("whatsoever") to bind and loose.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ